EVALUATING MATERIALS FOR VOCABULARY LEARNING

Evaluating Meaningful Teacher-Developed Materials for Vocabulary Learning

Jenifher Bautista Moyano

Thesis Director: Astrid Núñez Pardo M.A.

Universidad Externado de Colombia

School of Education

Master’s Program in Education with Emphasis on English Didactics

Bogotá D.C., Colombia

2019

EVALUATING MATERIALS FOR VOCABULARY LEARNING ii

__________________

Note of acceptance

Astrid Núñez Pardo, M.A. Thesis Director

María Fernanda Téllez Téllez, M.A. Juror

iii

Acknowledgments

I dedicate my thesis to my beloved sister Cindy Joanna, who has guided and

accompanied me throughout this process, with love and kidness. To my father and my husband,

for their love, motivation, unconditional support and inspiration to make this dream come true, to

become a better teacher. I also want to thank my thesis director, Professor Astrid Núñez Pardo,

for her wise academic assistance, professionalism and willingness to suport the research process.

My gratitude to all professors in the Master’s Program, for sharing their knowledge and

enthusiasm, which allowed me to grow as a person and as a professional.

iv

Abstract

This qualitative documentary research study analyzed and evaluated the aspects revealed in

teacher-developed materials that promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach

in preschool and elementary students in Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé, a private school

located in Olaya Herrera locality, in Bogotá. The corpus evaluated included the materials

(worksheets) developed by five preschool teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in

first, second, third, fourth, and fifth grades during 2015-2017. The instruments used to collect

data were matrices to evaluate worksheets, structured interview conducted with English monitor,

and a focus group interview, with the English teachers. The findings show that the teacher-

developed worksheets must improve in the aspects of appealing evinced, since there are not

common or general criteria in their design. On the one hand, it was possible to observe that there

is not connection between the objectives of the school curriculum and the activities proposed to

vocabulary learning process, in addition to the absence of activities related to students’ realities

or sociocultural context. On the other hand, the didactic organization for vocabulary learning was

not evident in the evaluated worksheets, concerning the aspects of word knowledge,

understanding it as the core for vocabulary learning. Besides, the foundations of meaningful

learning are not represented in the worksheets as the activities are not centered on young learners’

expectations or weaknesses; there is absence of activities to allow the use of language in realistic

contexts or to ponder their values. Finally, the results and recommendations of the present study

have been socialized and integrated to the development of materials at Colegio Mayor de San

Bartolomé, benefitting 823 primary students and five EFL teachers as text developers in the

institution.

Keywords: materials development, evaluation of materials, vocabulary learning,

meaningful approach

v

Resumen

Este estudio de investigación documental cualitativo evaluó y analizó aspectos relevantes de los

materiales desarrollados por las maestras para promover el aprendizaje de vocabulario en

estudiantes de preescolar y primaria del Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé, un colegio privado

ubicado en la localidad Olaya Herrera en Bogotá, a través del enfoque de aprendizaje

significativo. El corpus evaluado incluyó los materiales (guías de trabajo) desarrollados por cinco

maestras de inglés como lengua extranjera, en los niveles de preescolar en los grados de primero

a quinto de educación básica primaria durante el período de 2015-2017. Los instrumentos

utilizados para recopilar la información fueron las matrices para evaluar los materiales, la

entrevista semi- estructuradas realizada con la monitora de inglés, y una entrevista grupal dirigida

a las maestras de primaria, quienes elaboraron estos materiales. Los hallazgos demuestran que las

hojas de trabajo diseñadas por las maestras deben mejorar en los aspectos de presentación y

criterios generales en su diseño. Por una parte, fue posible observar que no hay conexión entre los

objetivos del currículo y las actividades propuestas para el proceso de aprendizaje de vocabulario,

así como ausencia de actividades relacionadas con la realidad o el contexto sociocultural de los

estudiantes. Por otra parte, no fue posible determinar una organización didáctica para el

aprendizaje de vocabulario en lo concerniente a los aspectos de conocimiento de una palabra,

como aspecto central en el aprendizaje de vocabulario. Los fundamentos del enfoque de aprendizaje

significativo no están representados en las hojas de trabajo, como actividades centradas en las

expectativas o dificultades de los estudiantes; hay ausencia de actividades que permitan usar el lenguaje

en contextos reales o en sus valores. Finalmente, los resultados y recomendaciones del presente

estudio se socializaron y se integraron al desarrollo de materiales en el Colegio Mayor de San

Bartolomé, beneficiando a 823 estudiantes de la básica primaria y a cinco maestros de inglés

como desarrolladores de materials en la institución

Palabras clave: desarrollo de materiales, evaluación de materiales, aprendizaje de

vocabulario, aprendizaje significativo.

vi

Resúmen Analítico en Educación (RAE)

General Information

Type of document: Magister Thesis Access to the document: Universidad Externado de Colombia Document tittle: Evaluating Meaningful Teacher-Developed Materials for

Vocabulary Learning Author: Jenifher Bautista Moyano Thesis Director: Astrid Núñez Pardo, M.A. Publication: July 2019 - 119 pages Sponsor Unit: Universidad Externado de Colombia Key Words: Materials development, evaluation of materials, vocabulary

learning, meaningful approach.

Description

This evaluation research analyzed and evaluated the aspects revealed in teacher-developed materials that promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among YLs in a private school. The instruments used to collect data for this study were: evaluation matrix, teachers’ artifacts, a focus group interview and a structured interview. To develop this study, three theoretical constructs were considered. First, in Materials Development-Evaluation were relevant some authors’ statements such as Cunningsworth (1995); Ellis (1997); Gómez, (2010); Grant (1987); Harmer (2007); Littlejohn (2011); Litz (2000); Masuhara and Tomlinson (2008); Núñez, and Téllez, (2008 and 2009); Núñez et al., (2013); Richards (2001); Sheldon (1988); and Tomlinson (2014). Second, for the theoretical construct related to Vocabulary learning this study considered the premises of Cameron (2001); Givón (1984); Nation (2001); O´Malley and Chamot (1990); Oxford and Crookall (1990)and Trask (1999). Lastly, in regard to the third construct of meaningful learning the main authors are mentioned: Ausubel (1981); Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008); (Novak, 1993, 2010 and 2011). The findings from this evaluation research unveiled the lack of a strategic planning, organization and curricular process that connect the academic and institutional purposes with the teacher-developed worksheets. Instead, it was possible to evince an implicit based on the Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) philosophy, but not with an intentional organization to favor vocabulary learning. Besides, the foundations of meaningful learning are not represented in the worksheets as the activities are not centered on YLs’ expectations, difficulties, cultural context or values.

vii

References

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Cambridge, UK: Macmillan Heinemann. Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51 (1),

36-42. Givón, T. (1984). Syntax, vol. 1. Amsterdam, Netherlans: John Benjamins Publishing. Gómez-Rodríguez, L. F. (2010). English textbooks for teaching and learning English as a foreign

language: Do they really help to develop communicative competence? Educación y Educadores, 13(3), 327-346.

Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. London, UK: Longman. Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Fourth Edition. New York,

U.S.A: Longman. Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In

Tomlinson, B. (Ed.) Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp. 179-211) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Litz, D. (2000). Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South Korean case study. Retrieved May 22, 2018, from http://www.asian-efljournal.com/Litz_thesis.pdf

Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Materials for general English. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials. A critical review (pp. 17-37). London: Continuum.

Mayer, R.E. (2002). Rote versus Meaningful Learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 226-232. Núñez, A. (2008). The evolving nature of language teaching methodologies. [PowerPoint slides]. Núñez, A., Téllez, M., & Castellanos, J., & Ramos, B. (2009). A practical materials development

guide for EFL novice, pre-service and inservice teachers. Bogotá, Colombia: Departamento de Publicaciones Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Núñez, A., Téllez, M., & Castellanos, J. (2013). Proposal for the Research Line Materials Development and Didactics Ascribed to the Research Group: Critical Pedagogy and Didactics for Social Transformation. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Richards, J. C. (2001). The Role of Textbooks in a Language Program. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42 (4), 237- 246. Tomlinson, B. (2014). Developing materials for language teaching (Second edition). London,

UK: Bloomsbury.

viii

Content

The present study encompasses five chapters. Chapter I refers to the research and statement of the problem. This chapter introduces the research questions, objectives, a section assigned to related studies, the setting and rationale. Chapter II portrays the literature review that supports this evaluation research study. Chapter III performs the research design where the reader can identify the approach and type of the study, as well as the participants and data gathering instruments. It also apprises the reader about the instructional design where the stages, procedures and objectives for the evaluation research are specified. Chapter IV presents the results from data analysis and the findings. Finally, Chapter V comprises the conclusions and pedagogical implications, and limitations of the research study conducted in a private school in Bogotá.

Methodology

The methodological design contains phases in regard to the evaluation matrix to evaluate teacher-developed worksheets. Firstly, the type of study and second the method. This section describes the teachers’ artifacts, the focus group interview and the structured interview as part of data gathering instruments. The methodological design also concerns the instructional stages, the qualitative criteria selection, the analysis of teacher-made worksheets to vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach.

Conclusions

The findings show that the teacher-developed worksheets must improve in the aspects of appealing evinced, since there are not common or general criteria in their design. On the one hand, it was possible to observe that there is no connection between the objectives of the school curriculum and the activities proposed to the vocabulary learning process, in addition to the absence of activities related to students’ realities or sociocultural context. On the other hand, the didactic organization for vocabulary learning was not evident in the evaluated worksheets, concerning the aspects of word knowledge, understanding it as the core for vocabulary learning. Besides, the foundations of meaningful learning are not represented in the worksheets as the activities are not centered on YLs’ expectations or weaknesses; there is absence of activities to allow the use of language in realistic contexts or to ponder their values.

ix

Table of Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Resumen .......................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... ix Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Research Problem .......................................................................................................................... 2

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 2 Research Question ..................................................................................................................... 3 Research Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3 General objective ...................................................................................................................... 3 Specific objectives .................................................................................................................... 3 Related Studies .......................................................................................................................... 4 Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Rationale ................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter II ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 11

Materials Development ........................................................................................................... 11 Defining materials development. ............................................................................................ 11 Conceptualizing materials. ...................................................................................................... 12 Type of materials .................................................................................................................... 14 Comprehensive categories of materials. ................................................................................. 14 Using meaningful materials .................................................................................................... 15 Second language acquisition principles relevant to MD ......................................................... 16 Evaluating EFL materials ....................................................................................................... 16 Framework for materials evaluation ....................................................................................... 19 Types of materials evaluation ................................................................................................. 23 Analysis of materials ............................................................................................................... 24 Contextualized framework to evaluate materials .................................................................... 26 Vocabulary Learning ............................................................................................................... 27 Defining a word ...................................................................................................................... 27 Learning vocabulary ............................................................................................................... 28 Vocabulary learning principles. .............................................................................................. 30 Vocabulary learning strategies ................................................................................................ 31 Meaningful Learning ............................................................................................................... 32 Conceptualizing meaningful learning ..................................................................................... 32

Chapter III .................................................................................................................................... 36 Methodological Design ................................................................................................................. 36

Research Design ...................................................................................................................... 36 Research paradigm. ................................................................................................................. 36 Research method ..................................................................................................................... 38 Type of study .......................................................................................................................... 39 Sources of additional information. F ..................................................................................... 41 Data gathering instruments. .................................................................................................... 43

x

Chapter IV .................................................................................................................................... 50 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 50

Data Analysis Procedure ......................................................................................................... 50 Research Categories ................................................................................................................ 50 Engaging layout and design. ................................................................................................... 50 Objectives of the school curriculum ....................................................................................... 53 Activities selection .................................................................................................................. 58

Chapter V ...................................................................................................................................... 72 Conclusions and Pedagogical Implications ................................................................................ 72

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 72 Pedagogical Implications ........................................................................................................ 73 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………...…74 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 75 Further Research ..................................................................................................................... 75

References ..................................................................................................................................... 76 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 87

Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix .............................................................................................. 87 Appendix B: Expert Validation Instruments ........................................................................... 89 Appendix C: Focus Group Protocol ........................................................................................ 91 Appendix D: Structured Interiew ............................................................................................ 94 Appendix E: Informed Consent Form ..................................................................................... 97 Appendix F: Teachers-Developed Worksheets Evaluated Second Grade .............................. 99 Appendix G: Teachers-Developed Worksheets Evaluated Third Grade .............................. 108 Appendix H: Teachers-Developed Worksheets Evaluated Fifth Grade ............................... 114

List of tables

Table 1:Sumary of Research Proposal ........................................................................................... 48 Table 2:Cronogram ........................................................................................................................ 49

EVALUATING MATERIALS FOR VOCABULARY LEARNING 1

Introduction

The use of suitable materials in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) class is

essential to attain children’s learning goals and teachers’ purposes. This qualitative documentary

research study is an innovation as it is the first of this nature being conducted within the emphasis

on English Didactics, and might serve as a basis for new research studies. It evaluates teacher-

developed materials aimed at fostering vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach

among young learners (YLs) in a private school. The creation of appropriate materials is a

teachers’ commitment to suit students’ needs (Núñez & Téllez, 2009; Núñez, Téllez &

Castellanos, 2012; 2017a; 2017b), “local needs of teaching settings” (Núñez & Téllez, 2015, p.

57) and “the institution’s needs” (Núñez, 2010, p. 50). Teachers’ awareness of the implications of

designing materials and assessing their input to vocabulary learning is an explicit condition to

embark on this activity. Thus, EFL teachers should explore students’ background and features to

decide about the most suitable materials and propose resources to awake children’s learning

interest, curiosity and motivation. This study aims at evaluating aspects revealed in teacher-

developed materials that promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach.

Envisioning learners’ success beyond the classroom context, the Colombian

government has launched different programs to foster extended education for EFL teachers to

improve their language competence. The Bilinguism National Program (2004-2019) of the

Ministry of National Education (MEN), and the Basic Standards for Language Competence

(MEN, 2006) are “a point of reference to establish what students are able to know about the

language and what they should know to do with it in a given context” (p. 11). Thus, conducting a

research to appraise teacher-developed materials leads EFL teachers and researchers to identify

their strengths and weaknesses regarding the design of proper materials to promote the learning

of vocabulary in a meaningful way. The document comprises five chapters to portray the research

process, as showed in the table of content.

2

Chapter I

Research Problem

Statement of the Problem

In an EFL context, teaching materials make sense when they offer experiences to learners

that allow to consolidate communicative processes through the motivation and interest for the

target language. For this reason, teaching and learning processess require proper materials as

“they support those processes for the development of communicative process in early childhood

within an EFL context” (Castillo, Insuasty & Jaime, 2016, p. 89). I have observed that the

teacher-developed materials, mainly worksheets, do not fulfill the purpose stated in the English

curriculum, which expects YLs to learn vocabulary through the meaningful learning approach.

This problem arose from two loop-writing activities, a reflective writing activity, the class

observation notes comprised in a taecher’s reflective journal, the results of YLs in their written

and oral performance, archival documents like the school Plan Integrado de Área (PIA), and the

English program of the school. Hence, the evaluation of the materials created to support the

teaching and learning of EFL in YLs through 2015-2017 is a matter of analysis aimed at

improving the sense of this problematic situation in the natural and social contexts of the EFL

classroom. Thus, several aspects have influenced the quality of materials, not analysed up to now,

probably due to teachers’ lack of knowledge in the field of materials development, lack of

monitoring work, and absence of YLs’ needs analysis. Therefore, I intend to evaluate the

outcome of “teacher-developed materials” (Núñez et al., 2017a, p. 22, 24; 2017 b, p. 19) that

foster vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among YLs.

This endevour is a response to the role of English teachers as subjects of knowledge

(Quiceno, 2010), historic subjects able to assume a citical stance of the world they live in and

propose and transform their reality (Freire, 1998), public intelectuals who promote critical

exchange of ideas that interrelates popular culture and pedagogy (Giroux, 2003), subaltern

3

intelectuals (Kumaravadivelu, 2014), “potential materials developers” (Núñez & Téllez (2009,

pp. 183-4) and “critical change agents within their institutions’ curriculum. (Núñez, Téllez &

Castellanos, 2017b, p. 60) who ought to question traditional methodologies and their uncritical

use and generate localized materials and approaches to respond to the particularities of the

contexts where English is learnt with such materials and approaches. On this vein, Núñez and

Téllez (2018) have urged EFl teachers to do so “by resisting the use of decontextualized and

standardized materials” if they want to “become producers, not consumers, of context-bound

teaching resources” (p. 83). From this prior critical stance, I stated the following research

question.

Research Question

What is revealed in teacher-developed materials that promote vocabulary learning through the

meaningful approach among young learners (YLs) in a private school?

Research Objectives

General objective: To evaluate the aspects revealed in teacher-developed materials that

promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among YLs in a private school.

Specific objectives. (a) To assess the teacher-developed materials in terms of their pertinence

and appropriateness, to foster vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among YL; (b) to

appraise vocabulary learning activities, in terms of comprehension in spoken and written form,

retrieval, pronunciation, correctness and use of vocabulary in contextualized oral and written

production, such as greetings, personal information, describing family and talking about emotions; and

(c) to assess the procedures to attain meaningful learning that teacher-developed materials offer to YLs

when associating new information to previous cognitive structures, in opposition to rote learning and

rote memorization.

4

Related Studies

This segment encompasses relevant studies related to this research study to support the

theoretical constructs that frame materials evaluation or inform about the advances and outcomes

associated with materials development (MD) for YLs, to help them learn vocabulary through the

meaningful learning approach. It is important to clarify that some related studies involved a

different population (high school graders), since there are not investigations carried out with YLs.

Therefore, the present study might serve as a basis for new investigations.

Regarding MD and vocabulary learning, Jahangard (2007) examines the merits and

demerits of four textbooks and materials prescribed by the Ministry of Education for Iranian high

schools, as the realization of the development and curriculum planning. Concerning the goals for

vocabulary learning, he highlights the section “New Words” in a book, which shows the way

teachers must instruct learners to familiarize them with the new vocabulary in a reading

comprehension section. The researcher browsed about 10 checklists proposed by different

authors and selected 13 features as the most common to evaluate interesting topics, vocabulary

explanation, or good grammar presentation. The results showed poor contextualization of new

vocabulary in the “New Words Section” of materials designed. However, this study provided

theoretical support with check lists to evaluate materials to succeed in vocabulary learning.

A qualitative and quantitative study, conducted by Al-Akraa (2013), focused on textbook

evaluation to analyse the introduction of grammar and vocabulary in the English textbook Iran

Opportunities 3 and appropriate by fifth-grade students, considering their language knowledge

and age. The use paper, pen, tables, notes and outlines where the participants answered 13

questions centered on the usefulness and the appropriateness of the textbook in terms of

vocabulary, grammar and culture, from which they selected the Likert scale, allowing data

collection to know the teachers’ perceptions of the YLs’ motivation as an effect of the contents

5

presented, to learn and eventually acquire or not the target language. Thirty teachers, selected at

random, participated in the study in five public elementary schools in Baghdad, Iraq.

Most items in the questionnaire were adapted from the checklists. The criteria used to

evaluate ELT materials were Cunningsworth (1995) and Tomlinson’s (1998). The introduction of

vocabulary, and the qualitative analysis showed that the author of Iraq Opportunities 3 utilizes

clear, colorful, and descriptive visuals in descriptive sentences, suiting age and level of students.

Although the context of conversation may be easily predicted from the visual aid of the word, its

introduction has no print words, apparently not suitable for YLs to get familiar with words in

written form, correctness and use in contextualized written production. I focused on the

identification of shortcomings in the development of learning activites performed under the

learning and meaningful approach.

Concerning textbook analysis, Dickinson (2010) conducted a research study to evaluate

the suitability of a coursebook and added materials from the ‘Let’s go’ series, for seven learners

aged six to seven, in a regional private language school in Japan. The evaluation scheme was

checklist-based, and teachers indicated the levels of agreement or disagreement about general

appereance, layout, design and the textbook methodology. Regarding methodology, the teacher’s

book follows the Presentation- Practice-Production (PPP) approach where learners practice or

review language previously presented through individual, pair and group work activities.

However, in some excersices, learners repeatedly asked each other pre-selected questions, which

neither engage their interest or provide a sufficient linguistic or cognitive challenge, nor allowed

their mental processes in the learning activities. The evaluation revealed that, although they

founded on a teacher-centred approach, they required adaptation to make them more suitable for

a learning-centred classroom. This study converges with mine in the assessment of pertinence

and appropriateness of the teacher-designed materials for the learning of vocabulary, and the use

of a checklist to evaluate teaching resources.

6

Likewise, a study held by Tok (2010) assessed advantages and disadvantages of ‘Spot

On’ textbook in state primary schools in Turkey and designed under the descriptive research

model focused on certain criteria to be examined from the perspective of teachers. The National

Ministry of Education approved the overall effectiveness of the textbook and assigned it to 8th

graders of primary schools. The participants were 46 English teachers from several primary

schools, selected at random. Data collection instruments consisted of the Teacher Textbook

Evaluation Scale (TTES) adapted to Turkish context, awarded a value from 1 to 5 for each

criterion. The analysis revealed that ‘Spot On’ integrates the four language skills. In reference to

the layout and design, there is not a proper vocabulary list entailing meaning or glossary, but the

content is realistic, interesting, challenging and motivating, in general. The findings of this stydy

uncover the importance of analyzing how the materials developed by teachers promote the active

role of YLs, association of prior and new meanings, interaction, and students’ interests, in

addition to the characteristics of meaningful learning, opposed to rote learning.

In view of meaningful learning and MD, the descriptive study conducted by Disptoadi

dan Ruruh (2011) evaluated two English coursebooks of the series ‘Hip Hip Hooray and

Backpack’ for YLs, each, consisted of six student’s books, six workbooks, cassettes/DVD, and a

teacher’s book. The study aimed at finding out whether they fulfilled the objectives based on

teaching English to YLs, and on the principles proposed by McCloskey (2002). The researcher

mentioned that teaching principles and characteristics of YLs are significant when choosing a

coursebook, to activate learning experience and comprehensible input with scaffolding (Bruner,

1995). It should integrate language and content. A questionnaire, an evaluation checklist and

interviews with teachers who used the coursebook were the instruments used to collect data. The

findings show that the learner-centered approach underpinned the textbook as it considers young

learners’ ways of learning and interests; it also entails attractive illustrations stimulates learners’

creativity. This study is pertinent to mine in the exemplification of the principles and procedures

7

considered in MD for vocabulary learning and alerts on the omission of proper teaching and

neglection of the feeding-relationship of the activities proposed.

Similarly, Javad (2010) evaluated suitability and appropriateness in four textbooks from

New Interchange Series, for the Iranian audience, to determine overall pedagogical value. Data

emerged from thirty-five teachers from Iranian language institutes, a textbook evaluation

questionnaire entailing several categories: layout and design of the book, activities, skills,

language type, subject and content of the book. Data revealed that activities fostered enough

communicative practice, individual, pair, and group work, and boosted creative, original, and

independent responses for teachers. In reference to vocabulary, lexical items are introduced in

motivating and realistic contexts to internalize new language presented. Nonetheless, teachers

disagreed on the layout and design, lack of vocabulary lists, review sections, practice exercises,

and quiz assessment. The results of the study support my intention of analyzing language

learning materials, to favor intake of new words introduced, as well as language content and the

vocabulary learning activities proposed.

Setting

This qualitative documentary research study was conducted in Colegio Mayor de San

Bartolomé, a Catholic private school in Bogotá, Colombia, whose mission is to educate

competent, conscious, and compassionate women and men committed to themselves, to each

other and to the environment, to construct a society where the defense of faith and dignity

privilege human rights, under the principles of Ignatian spirituality. By 2020, the institution

expects to be recognized for its high-quality Jesuit education committed to a culture of peace in

the achievement of human excellence in Colombia and in Latin America.

The constructivist approach underlies the school learning process in which the English

program stands on the Plan Integrado de Area (PIA), with reference to the annual work conceived

according to the purpose of the English area, the processes, the annual criteria for achievements

8

and indicators, contents, resources and assessment. Hence, the teacher-designed materials

(worksheets) guide the work performed during the three terms of the academic year. For this

study, constructivism connects to meaningful learning that implies a number of tenets argued by

Twomey (1989) who asserts that learning relates to previous knowledge, adapting and modifying

ideas to yield new ones, favoring, generating ideas instead of repeating verbatim words, and

foster meaningful learning to integrate new information to prior one allowing the construction of

new knowledge. Thus, evaluating meaningful teacher-developed worksheets for vocabulary

learning is a pertinent research endevour to help students in light of the Institutional Educational

Project (PEI, its acronym in Spanish), to build knowledge through experiences that involve

cognitive, interactive, and creative procedures. The core of the study converges with the

institutional philosophy of educating “critical citizens sensitive to cultural diversity and causes of

differences” (2017, p. 59). In view of this, the teacher-developed materials intend to address

critical thinking skills to foster awareness to diversity and inequalities among 759 students aged 4

to 11, whose English level is basic, and their socio-economic level (strata) is three. Most students

live with both parents, and a small group live with their single mothers.

Rationale

The main concern as a teacher, is to provide students with experiences to draw their

attention to learning English, and enhance my ability to exploit their full potential, creativity and

communicative competence, trying to avoid traditional teaching built on memorization or

repetition. From this stance, this study contributes to my professional growth since it offers

theoretical foundations to evaluate and contextualize informed teaching and learning materials.

The design of activities and resources to teach YLs has become a priority to increase the

children’s interest to learn the language. This study is pertinent to have teachers reflect on the

appropriateness and usefulness of their own designed materials. Furthermore, the study

emphasizes on materials development process redefining it as an essential cognitive and creative

9

procedure, in opposition to the format to complete information as a mandatory task. Likewise, the

study contributes to the accomplishment of the Bilingual National Program in Colombia (2004-

2019) to boost EFL proficiency of learners, focused on helping YL learn English to support the

enhancement of their communicative competence.

With regard to the Research Line on Materials Development and Didactics, adscribed to

the research group Critical Pedagogies and Didactics for Social Transformation (Núñez, Téllez &

Castellanos, 2013), this study is an innovation as it is the first qualitative documentary research

study of this nature being conducted within the emphasis on English Didactics. Indeed, it

advocates the principles of “justice, equity and inclusion” (p. 6), “empowerment and autonomy”

(p. 7) and “quality assurance and professional development” (p. 8). The first is observed in the

raise of learning activities that consider cultural diversity in equal conditions and importance, and

the identification of causes of differences and injustices; the second, perceived in students as

strategic learners that consciously apply learning strategies that eventually help them become

more independent learners; and the third is evinced as a means for teachers’ professional growth

to become text developers (Núñez et al., 2012, 2017a 2017b). This study opens the way for future

research focused on the appropriateness, pertinence and usefulness of materials by incorporating

contextualized criteria and strategies to evaluate and select textbooks or contextualized teacher-

designed materials. Thence, it is worth mentioning that, in our country, there are few research

studies on evaluating EFL teaching materials centered on vocabulary for YLs via the meaningful

learning approach.

Besides generating a context-bound methodology suggested for future teacher-

developed worksheets aimed at fostering vocabulary learning, such methodology, as discerned by

Canagarajah (2002), is framed within critical pedagogy as “there is scope to develop a context-

sensitive and community-specific approach to language teaching pedagogy” (p. 142). Moreover,

Kumaravadivelu’s (1994) macro-strategy approach to language learning advocates the connection

10

and application of affective, social, metacognitive, memory-related, general cognitive and

compensatory learning strategies. From this approach, Canagarajah (2002) remarked that

“learners have to be made sensitive to the range of strategies available and the strategies that

work for them” (p. 143). From this perspective, unquestionably our role as educators, as

highlighted by Núñez (2018), is “to resist not only contemporary industrial and commercial

English language teaching materials, but also decontextualized and standardised methodologies

that disregard the variety and particularities of sociocultural local contexts” (slide 2). This can be

done by promoting the creation of learning materials entailing learning activities centred on the

studens’ real contexts and life experiences for discussion and alternative-decision making of

different problematic situations of everyday life. To this respect, the principal of San Bartolomé

School has recognized this documentary research as a valuable contribution to enrich knowledge

and empower curricular decisions in the constant search for the highest quality in the field of

English teaching, whose results will benefit 823 primary students and five EFL teachers as text

developers in the institution (See Appendix F).

11

Chapter II

Literature Review

This chapter elaborates on the theoretical constructs that guide and validate this

qualitative documentary research study, aimed at evaluating the aspects revealed in teacher-

developed materials promoting vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach in young learners.

First, Materials Development (MD), in particular the insights to the analysis and evaluation of

materials. Second, vocabulary learning; and third, incorporation of meaningful learning approach

as a constituent in the development of materials for vocabulary learning.

Materials Development

Class materials are main resources to ease students and teachers’ interaction in the quest

of enhancing EFL learning. To this point, Castañeda and Rico (2015) assert that materials “have

been linked in learning and acquisition of a foreign language as a powerful pegagogical tool sinc

they fulfil a mediating role and engage students in the learning of a foreign language” (p. 39).

Similarly, for Castañeda and Rico (2015), Davcheva and Sercu (2005), Núñez (2010), and Núñez

and Téllez (2009, 2015), language materials are vital in the EFL teaching and learning processes.

Likewise, Kitao and Kitao (1997) conceive them as the key to teach a foreign language. Materials

support class activities and students’ learning experience. Either designed, selected or adapted,

they must increase motivation to meet students’ needs and interests.

Defining materials development. Considering class activities proposed in textbooks,

teachers must adapt them to respond to students’ features, and be aware of what this process

entails. Tomlinson (2003) conceives MD “as a field of the study and practical undertaking” (p.

1), while Núñez et al., (2013) consider it as “a field of study [that] demands an informed

methodology that allows validating the efficiency, appropriateness and relevance of materials

within the context of learning a language” (p. 10). Likewise, Tomlinson (2012) contends that MD

12

“refers to all the processes made use of by practitioners who produce and/or use materials for

language learning, including materials evaluation, their adaptation, design, production,

exploitation and research” (pp. 143-144). Hence, developing, adjusting, implementing and

appraising materials under certain criteria is a pedagogical endeavor to help teachers deepen,

reflect and apply knowledge and experience to link theory to practice within a specific context.

Conceptualizing materials. EFL materials aid teachers to define content, topics, type of

activities, strategies and objectives in the EFL classroom. Tomlinson (2003), defined materials as

a “resource used by teachers or learners to facilitate the learning of language” (p. 2). Núñez et al.,

(2009) conceive them as “teaching resources and strategies used to maximize students’ language

learning” (p. 172). Thus, both learning activities and strategies are involved in materials to guide

students’ learning processes. Likewise, Xiaotang’s (as cited in Núñez & Téllez, 2015) assert that

materials “represent the aims, values, and methods in teaching a foreign language. Materials are

the most powerful device in spreading new methodological ideas and in shaping language

teaching and learning practice” (p. 58). They are also informed by approaches and become

mediators to strengthen learners’ own culture and values and disseminate ideas that favour the

socioeconomic systems in which they are produced.

Since language and culture are tightly related, materias are defined from a sociocultural

perspective. On this matter, Núñez et al., (2013) consider materials as “socio-cultural resources

that facilitate not only linguistic interaction but also cultural exchanges between the various

human groups” (p. 10). Likewise, Rico (2012) establishes them from the intercultural

communicative competence (ICC) perspective, where materials and textbooks turn into a

valuable means to present a foreign language and a culture, where learners are able to negotiate

cultural meanings and adopt effective communicative behaviors. In this regard, the author further

considered that “language materials… are a source of exposure for learners to language and

culture. In multicultural contexts, they become helpful tools that promote encounters between

13

[sic] people of different cultural backgrounds” (p. 130). Thus, textbooks are bridges to join the

world, going beyond mere language structures that help learners become sensitive to differences.

In contrast, Richards (2001) perceives textbooks as useful means to support materials for

two main reasons. First, students can put linguistic resources of the target language into practice

by developing skills in equality; second, textbooks are resources to approach the language

enriching the teacher’s lessons. The author states, “The textbook may serve primarily to

supplement the teacher's instruction. For learners, the textbook may provide the major source of

contact they have with the language apart from input provided by the teacher” (p. 1). Moreover,

the teacher’s pedagogical knowledge and creativity allow students to widen their knowledge of

the world by assigning activities to associate the textbook topics with current events reported on

the news, as part of meaningful learning. Materials are also defined in regard to written texts and

learning activities to allow the learners to manipulate the language. To this respect, Harwood

(2010) attests that “text [may be] presented to learner in paper-based, audio, or visual form,

and/or exercises and activities around such texts” (p. 3). Thus, these materials are part of sources

considered in the TESOL curriculum by establishing the main aspects of the process.

When designing and selecting materials, Richards and Rodgers (1986) propose three

fundamental aspects: a) the theoretical stance (approach), the way to present materials and the

roles in the teaching and learning process (design); b) the activities planned for students to

develop (procedure), c) and the analysis of the pertinence and effectiveness of sources, through

the evaluation of texts. In addition, Brown (as cited in Harwood, 2010) remarks the need to

evaluate the curriculum in general and the materials in particular (p. 5). In this study, materials

are pedagogical resources that foster socio-cultural communication within the meaningful

learning approach and linked to learning strategies, aimed at achiving values of listening and

respect others to educate critical citizens sensitive to cultural diversity and causes of differences.

14

Type of materials. Language teaching and learning materials offer a wide range of

resources such as articles, songs, board games, books, dictionaries, among others. Teachers can

create learning scenarios within the classroom by designing and adaptating materials. Depending

on their aim, Tomlinson (2012) identifies meaningful features and stages to maximize materials

effectiveness: (a) “Informative, …(b) instructional, … (c) experiential, … (d) eliciting, and … (e)

exploratory” (p. 143) to provide information about the language, allow for practice, implement

motivational design based on attention, relevance and confidence to use the language, encourage

them to do it, and make discoveries through practice. The author highlights three significant

roles: as an instructor, a mediator, and a facilitator of the students’ learning process.

The scholar also asserts that “materials can be course books, flashcards, classified

readings or visual and auditory in the case of videos, games, and websites” (p. 143). Similarly,

Núñez, Pineda and Téllez (2004); Núñez et al., (2009); and Núñez, Téllez, Castellanos and

Ramos (2009) recognize class materials developed by teachers, such as teaching-learning

exercises, tasks, activities, lessons, units or modules; and course books as well. In short, teacher-

developed materials are relevant, especially in YLs, to enhance learning for lasting knowledge

through the conscious application of learning strategies, to foster socio-cultural communication.

Comprehensive categories of materials. The two broad categories of materials comprise

authentic and non-authentic. Montijano (2014) states that “authentic materials are those not

produced specifically for language teaching purposes” (p. 281). This means, they represent

natural and spontaneous expressions of values and cultural attitudes. Likewise, Wallace (1992)

defines them as “real-life texts, not written for pedagogic purposes” (p. 145). Conversely, non-

authentic materials are the outcome of specific teaching designed for academic purposes. The

second perspective defines authentic materials as those planned according to stated objectives

adjusted to a methodology, a learning process or a didactic resource. Hence, non-authentic

15

materials are useful in the EFL learning process; teachers can design activities to ease and

motivate YLs when they use new vocabulary and enhance oral or written production.

Using meaningful materials. Concerning the use of the textbook associated to

communicative competence in an EFL context, Gómez (2010) underlined the concept of

communicative texts as resources characterized by presenting meaningful content and activities

related to real life events, and conveying meaningful ideas in a specific context or encouraging

communication in group work. The scholar argued that “making mistakes is a part of the learning

process” (Gómez, 2010, p. 331). Due to the nature and purpose of this study, materials are

mediators between the teachers’ proposals and their role of facilitators for students to access and

make use of the language in specific situations and contexts to build knowledge. As claimed by

Richards (2001), materials like textbooks “provide support for teachers” (p. 2). However, the use

of commercial materials should be resisted to encourage teachers’ ability to produce their own

ones, as suggested by Kumaravadivelu (2014), observing the parameters of particularity

(understanding the context) and practicality (contextualizing and producing local knowledge); as

remarked by Núñez et al., (2009), since teachers are “agents of permanent change” (p. 184) and

as ratified by Núñez et al. (2009), teachers are “active agents of change” (p. 19). Moreover, as

advocated by Freire (2005), teachers are social subjects able to transform their world through

dialogical relations and bidirectionality between students and himself/herself, in which by

communicating and sharing their ideas and perceptions of the world, they learn more about their

hopes, doubts or fears. Then, the teacher becomes an agent that accompanies learners by

discovering and promoting them; and concerning himself/herself, creating and transforming the

reality, “liberating education, problematizing, can no longer be the act of narrating or transmitting

"knowledge" and values to learners, ... but being a knowing act" (Freire, 2005, p. 91). To deal

with these aspects, this study allows to determine the scope of teacher-designed materials in the

cognitive structure and their effectiveness in optimizing a meaningful learning process.

16

Second language acquisition principles relevant to MD. The new trends in the

interactive context of the world carry on a new perspective regarding language constraints. Thus,

educational systems face new needs that converge in the learning and the adquisition of language

in an EFL context. In doing so, Second Language Acquisition (SLA) principles are considered

when developing materials. Tomlinson (2011) defines 15 principles for MD, built on SLA. On

this matter, Núñez et al., (2009) deepen on essential aspects connecting them with stances

proposed by other authors such as Arnone (2003); Harmer (2007); Small (1997); and Tomlinson

(1998). In light of these scholars, I considered six outstanding SLA principles in the teaching and

learning process to suit the school context. Núñez et al. (2009) claimed that:

(a) Materials should achieve impact through novelty, variety, attractive presentation and

appealling content; (b) help learners feel at ease; (c) help learners develop self-confidence

in non-threatening learing environments; (d) expose the learners to language in authentic

use; (e) provide the learners with opportunities to the target language to achieve

communicative purposes; (f) foster conscious application of learning strategies to

facilite students’ self-discovery of language use; and (g) consider that learners differ in

affective attitudes. (pp. 43-44)

To achieve coherence in MD, the SLA principles selected let teachers establish criteria

for stating the scope and effectiveness of materials developed by teachers and their influence, so

that learning is satisfactorily, from a communicative and meaningful perspective.

Evaluating EFL materials. In the EFL context, evaluation of materials makes part of

MD. It is a requirement to select resources that ease the learning process and the way they fulfil

the teaching objectives, whether selected, adapted or designed. Tomlinson (2013) defines

evaluation of materials as “a procedure that involves measuring the value (or potential value) of a

set of learning materials” (p. 21). Similarly, Hutshinson and Waters (1987) state that “evaluating

is a matter of judging the fitness of something for a particular purpose. Given a certain need and

17

in the light of resources available” (p. 96). This leads us to say that it basically concerns relative

merit of the resources, which in words of the authors, “The evaluation process should be

systematic and is best seen as a matching exercise: matching your analyzed needs with available

solutions” (p. 105). Alternatively, for Williams (1983), it is an analytical practice that aims “to

find out whether the organization of materials is consistent with the objectives of a given English

language curriculum” (p. 251). In contrast, the evaluation of materials is a dynamic process,

which is “fundamentally a subjective, rule-of-thumb activity” where “no neat formula, grid, or

system will ever provide a definitive yardstick” (Sheldon, 1988, p. 245). From these views,

evaluating EFL materials is a matter of determining the fitness of existing materials for a

particular purpose, and “even there is not any ideal textbook to teach English” (Rico, 2005, p. 1);

evaluating materials yields adjustments and balance between what teacher-designed materials

offer and what teachers want to teach. Hence, students learn when recognizing their real context.

Likewise, from Littlejohn’s (2011) view, the analysis of language teaching materials is

mandatory to “examine the implications that the use of a set of materials may have for classroom

work and come to grounded opinions about whether or not the methodology and content of the

materials is appropriate” (p. 180). Besides, Richards (2012) claims the usefulness of monitoring

the EFL class materials, as a vital language component of the program, regardless their origin.

On this basis, it is possible to follow textbooks from information gathered with the

purpose of improving and transforming teaching and learning processes, which must entail three

fundamental roles: textbook versus program, teachers versus program, and learners versus

program. More precisely, “These processes of transformation are at the heart of teaching and

enable good teachers to create effective lessons out of the resources they make use of” (Richards,

2012, p. 5). Regarding evaluation of EFL materials, McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara (2013),

conceive this process as “a very important professional activity for all English as a Foreign

Language (EFL) teachers” (p. 50), and proposed evaluation from two criteria: external and

18

internal evaluation. On the one hand, external evaluation considers the format of the materials,

such as “cover, introduction, table of contents, blurb, layout and design” (Masuhara, et al. 2013,

p. 54). On the other hand, the purpose of internal evaluation focuses on the analysis of the factor

stages: “language skills presentation, the grading and sequencing, the type of reading, listening,

speaking and writing materials and the appropriacy of tests, exercises and self-study” (Masuhara,

et al. 2013, p. 60). At a general level, the key elements proposed in the external and internal

evaluation stages allow for making appropiate judments in reference to the materials developed

by teachers, becoming a flexible model in a particular ELF context.

Similarly, Ellis (1997) states two premises of materials evaluation. The predictive

“designed to make a decision regarding what materials to use” (p. 36), performed in two ways.

One is assured from particular criteria shown for expert researchers and in the literature rewiew

to evaluate the materials, as the case of Journals or Survey Reviews. In the second premise, Ellis

(1997) mentions checklists and guidelines by some scholars, Breen and Candlin (1987);

Cunningsworth (1984); McDonough and Shaw 1993); and Skierso (1991), as possible opcions

for teachers to establish and organize their own questions and evaluation criteria, leading to a

“predictive evaluation sistematically” (p. 36). These two models are consistent with the intention

of this study, to corroborate how the tracher-developed materials achieve objetives and purposes

of the English programm in my school context; this in turn, serves to review theories for

language learning and teaching as well as for the development of proper pedagogical materials

(non-authentic) to inform these sociocultural mediators.

Nonetheless, the autor argues that in this kind of evaluation “the criteria often remain

inexact and implicit” (p. 36), and according to Sheldon’s (1988) tenet, there is not “formula, grid,

or system will ever provide a definitive yardstick” (p. 245). Thence, the most valuable criteria

emerge from teachers’ vision of the class context to decide on the suitability and effectiveness of

the materials according to the setting.

19

Subsequently, the retrospective evaluation connects to test materials that have actually

been developed. Consequently, “it is worthwhile using the materials again, which activities 'work'

and which do not, and how to modify the materials to make them more effective for future use”

(Ellis, 1997, p. 37). To this respect, retrospective evaluation can be impressionistic or empirical.

In reference to the first, teachers assess the level of enthusiasm and interaction with the materials

with the students, to make summative judgements at the end of the course (Ellis, 1997, p. 37).

Concerning empirical evaluation, it is an “attempt to collect information in a more systematic

manner” (p. 37) where criteria of the effectiveness of teaching are also considered. Accordingly,

evaluating EFL materials is a significant process to determine criteria of efficiency and relevance

of the materials developed by the teachers of YLs, which becomes an opportunity of professional

growth. Thus, the reflection on the effectiveness of the methodologies in the teaching process

improves pedagogical practices in the team of teachers.

Framework for materials evaluation. In the process of evaluating materials, several

authors such as Byrd (2001), Cunningsworth (1995), Grant (1987), Harmer (2007), Isik (2018),

Litz (2000), Littlejhon (2001), Masuhara and Tomlinson (2008), Nuñez et al. (2009), and Ur

(1996) have proposed useful frameworks. First, Byrd (2001) deems essential to consider the fit

between the materials and the curriculum, in addition to some practical aspects concerning their

use by students and teachers. She also suggests a general evaluation through a checklist “to afford

the teachers’ opinion about the suitability of the textbook to the goals of the curriculum in the

range from yes, (good), pherhaps, (adequate), probaly not (poor) to absolutely not (wrong for

curriculum, students and/or teachers)” (Byrd, 2001, p. 427). As observed in the prior range, the

school curriculum and the features of the community determine the textbook level of suitability.

With regard to textbooks, Cunningsworth (as cited in Richards, 2001, p. 4) proposed four

key guidelines, especially in evaluating and selecting course books; and claims that they should:

20

(i) correspond to learner’s needs and match the aims and objectives of language learning

program; (ii) reflect the uses (present or future) which learners will make of the language;

(iii) take account of students’ needs as learners and should facilitate their learning

processes, without dogmatically imposing a rigid “method”; and (iv) have a clear role as a

support for learning.

These guidelines are useful to measure the effectiveness of materials in relation to the

fulfillment of the curriculum objectives, and thus, helpful to make necessary changes and

adjustments when requiered. It is also convenient to compare the design of materials in different

curricula with similar objectives. In this way, it serves to propose institutional plans aimed at

improving the design and use of materials for language teaching and learning.

The author further presents a checklist as a reference under the next items:

aims and approaches (teaching program, learning styles); design and organization

(components of course package, content d, grammar section, and layout); language

content (grammar items, individual learning strategies, extended writing, and social

situation); skills (integrated skills work, listening material, questions or activities to help

comprehension, spoken English for real life interactions, writing activities), topic

(genuine interest of learners, variety of topics, social and cultural contexts, gender

equality, groups represented in reference of ethnic, occupation or disability) methodology

(approaches of language learning, learning styles, learning strategies) teacher’s book

(adequate guidance, teaching techniques, key answers) and practical considerations (cost,

attractive, easy to obtain, requirement particular equipment). (pp. 140-141)

From my own perspective, a checklist should consider aspects of form and image, the

aim and objectives, and intentionality of the materials, the selection criteria for the porposed

activities, in addition to aspects related to organization, methodology and language configuration.

21

Similarly, Harmer (2007) suggests a pre-use assessment based on benchmarks to

determine the effectiveness of a textbook: “price, availability, layout and design, instructions,

methodology, syllabus type, language study activities, language skills activities, topics, cultural

acceptability, usability and teacher’s guide” (p. 301). To this point, Harmer argues that teachers

can choose to concentrate on specific aspects, according to their own students’ needs and

features. Once determined the statements to be evaluated, it is suggested to arrange them in a

checklist using “a simple tick and across system to compare different books” (Harmer, 2007, p.

302). Moreover, Harmer (2007) reports additional scores to evaluate success of lessons and

activities in materials, such as “a score from 0-5, we could design a rating scale to measure

students’ satisfaction with a lesson or part of the lesson” (p. 303). Then, teachers must be

autonomous to design the instrument to gather students’ opinions about their satisfaction in

relation to the effectiveness of materials, and success attained in each activity proposed.

Alternatively, Isik (2018) mentions a materials evaluation system from internal and

external as two main categories, to “create an efficient evaluation process and suggest detailed

comprehensive checklists that can be exploited while forming ones for each specific ELT

context” (p. 798). Led by Isik´s framework, external evaluation entails five subcategories: enough

informative, face validity, periphery, learner´s role and context-related factors. Concerning of the

internal evaluation, is divided in the follow 15 subcategories: “aim approach, syllabus, linguistic

aspect, teacher-related factors, learner-related factors, classroom organization, instructions,

content, culture, lexis, skills, unit format, measumerent and evaluation and software” (p. 801). So

far, the values of the previous subcategories might be in the range of strongly disagree, disagree,

neutral, agree and strongly agree. The process to evaluate materialas seems to be time consuming

and hard to do. Because of this, the abovementioned categories favor time consuming to develop

a practical, concise and detailed checklist adopting the most appropiate issues to create my own

checklist according to the aim of the study.

22

With the purpose of analyzing the overall pedagogical value, practicality and external

aspects of materials, Litz (2000) emphasizes on seven main cathegories, each with a value from 1

to 10, based on Likert’s scale; going from highly disagree to highly agree, to reflect the

participants’ level of agreement and to qualify the appropriateness “to the learners for whom they

are being used” (p. 2), developing a questionnaire consisted of 40 items. These categories are on

the subject of the “package (value, content and methodology), layout and design (overall

organization), activities and tasks (the use of language), skills (receptive and productive skills),

language type, subject and content; and finally, overall consensus” (Litz, 2000, pp. 43-45). As a

result, the previous aspect mentioned allow to take into account in the analyzing process both

internal and external aspects of teaching materials.

By the same token, Littlejohn (1998) focuses on examining materials from a pedagogical

viewpoint, “that is, aid to teaching and learning a foreign language” (p. 182). His framework

aimed at checking materials regarding publication (physical aspects), design (underlying

thinking) and a task analysis schedule to study both the learners’ participation and the content,

through the next three questions: “What is the learner expected to do? (turn-take, focus, mental

operation), who with? (individually, pairs or groups) and with what content? (input/output

learners” (p. 189). The scale from 0 to 4 points evaluates the items in a checklist.

Meanwhile, Masuhara and Tomlinson (2008) conducted materials evaluation to identify if

“coursebooks are meeting the needs and wants of the target learners and teachers” (p. 17). The

authors focused on 14 criteria in light of SLA principles using a 10-point rating scale, where 1

represents the minimum and 10 corresponds to the maximum. Taking into account that, the

scholars determined the following criteria to identify what is the extend of materials in relation

to: (a) provide exposures to English in authentic use, (b) meaningful exposure, (c) interesting

texts, (d) achievable challenges, (e) affective engagement, (f) cognitive engagement, (g)

discovering English in use, (h) meaningful activities, (i) feedback opportunities, (j) positive

23

impact, (k) try to use English-speaking outside the classroom, (l) classroom learning applied

outside the classroom effectively, (m) English treatment as an international language and (n)

opportunities for cultural awareness.

Besides, Núñez, et al. (2009) propose a self-assessment through a checklist, especially for

those teachers that create and develop their own materials, aimed at examining if they achieve the

objectives for which they were created. With this in mind, the authors selected five items namely

“(a) humour, (b) engagement, (c) interesting, stimulating and creative, (d) sensitive to the needs

and wants of each of the learners, and (e) self-reflection” (p. 48); where each one can be

evaluated under the criteria: Outstanding, Good quality and Could improve.

Otherwise, Ur (1996) suggests a general and applicable criterion for coursebook

assessement in language-teaching context concerning “to the appropriateness of the book for a

certain course or learner population” (p. 184). For instance, in criteria such as: layout, interesting

topics and tasks, clear instructions, organized content, vocabulary practice and explanation,

developed skills and learning strategies, supplementary materials, among others; their degree of

importance is awared marking with a tick or a cross; where double or single tick represent a well

score and double or single cross show a low score. By contrast, Grant (1987) reports the acronym

CATALYST generating some specific evaluation criteria “deciding how a book should be most

profitably used in … classroom – and how it should be adapted” (p. 118). The letters in the word

CATALYST, represent key criteria to test the eight aspects below: “communicative, aims,

teachability, available add-ons, level, your impression, students’interest, tried and tested” (as

cited in Mishan and Timmis, 2015, p. 61). In light of these scholars’ criteria, this study proposes

a set of contextualized criteria to evaluate appropriateness and usefulness of teacher-developed

materials, presented as an evaluation matrix (See Appendix A).

Types of materials evaluation. In this matter, Cunningsworth (1995) defines three

specific stages: depending on the circumstances, the use and the experiences based on a course

24

book, it is possible to evaluate materials considering some procedures. Another view is the pre-

use evaluation wich implies to foretell “about the potencial value of materials for their users”

(Tomlinson, 2013, p. 30). In the in-use evaluation, it is possible to observe how the users interact

with the materials and this experience “is most reliable when it draws on the experiences of

several teachers and several groups of learners” (McGrath, 2002, p. 15). Lastly, the post use-

evaluation let reflect on the extent of the materials in view of pertinence, impact and relevance to

learners in a short and long-term referring to “motivation, impact, achievability, instant Learning”

(Tomlinson, 2013, p. 33). Thence, the features of the previuos types of material evaluation allow

teachers to perceive what learners may need, and the suitability of content, didactic and

methodological procedures and resources, leading us to say that designing materials is a complex

process of conscientious analysis, prior to the development and implementation in the classroom.

The aforementioned ideas converge and become similar in terms of checklist porposed

by the authors (Ansary & Babaii, 2002; Cunningsworth, 1995; Grant’s 1987; MacDonough and

Shaw 2003; McGrath 2002; and Sheldon, 1988) considering it as a verification instrument with a

high range of application and adaptability depending on the classroom context. For the purposes

of this study, I privileged the pre-use evaluation since the teachers are expected to create their

own materials to foment the learning of vocabulary within the meaningful learning approach in

my school. Furthermore, as the staff did not allow me to observe how YLs interact with the

teacher-designed materials or how the teachers use these materials in class, a valid research

alternative was to choose the pre-use type of evaluation.

Analysis of materials. Regarding that evaluating and analising materials include aspects

that overlap, I deemed pertinent to briefly refer to the analysis of materials. In this respect,

Littlejohn (2011) elaborated on Richards and Rodgers who focused on examining materials from

a pedagogical perspective, in reference of two aspects: publication and design. The first concerns

the access to materials, and the way learners interact with the elements that compose them. This

25

is the case of audios, videos, printed or electronically worksheets, wordlists, indexes, links among

others. In sum, publication refers to “the ‘tangible’ or physical aspects of the materials”

(Littlejohn, 2011, p. 183). The second entails three aspects. First, the objectives stated to achieve

with the materials “aims of materials”. Second, the way materials respond to a curriculum since

“task, language and content in the materials are selected and d”. Third, it deals with the nature of

and focus material content for example, “cross-curricular content, storylines or topics” (p. 184).

Accordingly, the objectives, the class activities planned, and the content of the materials must be

associated and interrelated to respond to the curricular requirements and to the students’ needs

and expectations, in terms of the appropriatenes of the materials designed. Nonetheless, I noticed

that the teacher-developed materials were entirely designed to achieve goals associated to

communicative functions in the EFL class, without considering topics from other areas.

Among relevant aspects related to evaluating the role of the activities presented in

materials to boost the learners’ capacities and abilities, it is worth underlining expression,

creativity and autonomy while developing different skills (reading, listening, reading and

writing). This coincides with Breen and Candlin (1997), who remark the need to promote

knowledge through an active role of learners and a proactive attitude towards learning. This

principle was stated as the process competence defined from “an analysis of teaching learning

activities will closely focus on process competence; what learners are asked to do and how they

do” (Littlejohn, 2011, p. 184). In my case, the process emerged from the analysis to accomplish

an objective evaluation focused on teacher-developed materials, rather than making judgments.

Tomlinson (as cited in Tomlinson, 2013, p. 22), “It ‘asks questions about what the materials

contain, what they aim to achieve and what they ask learners to do”. In addition, Islam (as cited

in Tomlinson, 2003), remarks the strength of activities presented in materials on the subject of

language acquisition considering meaningful topics arousing learners’ interests. In line with this

view, the researcher further stated that “the language and activities need to be consistently

26

engaging in order for the learner to pay attention and to create the conditions for acquisition to

take place” (p. 259). This is a more conductive setting to detail vocabulary learning activities

involved in the materials developed by teachers, and how these activities aid the teaching and

learning process of oral and written production by means of contextualized topics.

Contextualized framework to evaluate materials. For the purposes of this evaluation, I

selected the model provided by Littlejohn, and included some items proposed by Cunningsworth

(1995), Grant (1987), Littlejohn (2001), Litz (1990), Masuhara and Tomlinson (2008), Núñez et

al. (2009) Sheldon (1988) and Ur (1996), to formulate and apply contextualized criteria to assess

the teacher-developed materials used for YLs to attain meaningful learning. Furthermore, taking

a retrospective approach to the evaluation contributed “to determine whether it is worthwhile

using the materials again, which activities ‘work’ and which do not, and how to modify the

materials to make them more effective for future use” (Ellis, 1997, p. 37). This perspective

converges with what Núñez et al., (2009) propose about MD scaffolding, to build suitable

materials and develop for a course in progress, which require needs assessment analysis, creating

or adapting materials, evaluating materials, piloting, and making adjustments. Thence, the

proposed contextualized framework to evaluate the teacher-developed materials that promote

vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among young learners (YLs) in this private

school entails: (a) layout, design and organization; (b) goals of the school curriculum; (c)

activities and task selected, d and use of the language; (d) what the learner is expected to do, turn

take focus, mental operations; (e) individual, pair or group learning activities; (f) content

input/output for learners; (g) students’ needs to facilitate the learning process; (h) realistic content

evinced in variety of topics pertaining to the sociocultural contexts and language use in a

communicative real world; (i) conscious the application of learning strategies, facilitating self-

discovery of language use, grammar ítems and social situation; (j) interesting, stimulating and

creative materials that develop student’s imaginery, offer pedagogical procedures, and keep a

27

balance between print and pictures; (k) sensitiveness to the needs and wants of each of the learner

in terms of command of language, diverse intelligences, learning styles, self-confidence; (l)

opportunities for self-reflection on students’ learning, values, interests, experiences, beliefs; and

(m) students’ opinions about the level of satisfaction in relation to the appropriateness of English

worksheets.

After presenting the frameworks for materials evaluation, the following fragment deals

with the second construct that support this study, vocabulary learning.

Vocabulary Learning

Defining a word. Previous to the discussion of the process of learning vocabulary, it is

pertinent to start defining the term ‘word’ as a unit of expression associated by a meaning that

can be manifested both through sounds and through letters. Likewise, Trask (1999) suggests a

word as “A linguistic unit typically larger than a morpheme, but smaller than a phrase” (p. 228).

The author points out four different definitions. First, the orthographic word in the writing system

either alphabetic or syllabic. Second, the phonological word in relation to a signal represented by

a sound. Third, a lexical ítem or lexeme concerning the meaning of something. Finally, a

grammatical word-form as the addition of the previuos three meanings for a grammatical purpose

(Task, 1999). From Schmitt’s (2000) view, it is “an item that functions as a single meaning unit”

(p. 2). In the light of this point, this lexical unit has a characteristic called inflection that implies

preserving its root and modifying its orthographic structure with the addition of affixes, from

which new families of words emerge. For Schmitt, it is important to understand how, from the

multiple variations of a word, word families arise; that is to say, vocabulary. Such process of

word transformation leads teachers and learners to conclude that “learning language is probably

the most cognitively (mentally) challenging task a person goes through” (p. 4). Thus, words are

linguist meaningful units that require a process of analysis related to meaning, use, grammar

functions, and morphological inflections according to the context.

28

As it is generally accepted, we use words to convey meaning in everyday communication.

Similarly, Givón (1984) remarks words as sound-codes that “stand for concepts, wich have

meaning” (p. 43). It has to do with a word (concept) as the smallest unit of language in the fact of

adding words where the sentences provide information (clauses) and how that way of gathering

sentences turns into a discourse (coherence). Specifically, the author states two perspectives in

regard to conveying information. On the one hand, the internal perspective concerns “how

clauses are constructed from vocabulary” (p. 43). On the other hand, the external aspect entails

how clauses “are combined together into a discourse” (p. 43). Then, I drew my attention to

understanding words and proper use of their linguistic signs in oral and written production, and

the blend of words with accurate meaning to favor effective communicative processes in YLs.

Learning vocabulary

Identifying and getting to know the concept of ‘word’ to connect with a new language

development, especially for YLs, I deemed necessary to highlight some definitions of vocabulary

learning as the process to build up students’ comprehension and use of a foreign language

through several encounters intentionally guided by the teacher and strengthened over the time in

a given context. Cameron (2001) defines words within this context as a discrete-key unit in

building up skills and knowledge. Due to the significant role of vocabulary learning, there is an

increasing interest in understanding word functions in language learning and acquisition. First,

the scholar indicates that function of words is learned by their permanent use in diverse

discourses. This kind of words involve grammatical content, such as auxiliary verbs, while

content words, are identified as the ones that carry lexical meaning even out of context and are

taught directly; for example, adjectives, pronouns, verbs, among others. Moreover, Sharzad and

Derekhshan (as cited in Momeni & Reza, 2012), refer to intentional and incidental vocabulary.

The first is learned by explicit instruction from the teacher as it engages foremost vocabulary

29

development; the second happens as result of a certain activity in or outside the classroom, whose

main objective is not learning words.

In addition, language development is a cyclical process. In this regard, Anderson (as

cited in Oxford & Crockall, 1990) state that knowing a word is more than learning meaning, or

its definition, and includes knowing when and how to use it in a context; in this case, the

communicative use of L2 words. Besides, Cameron (2001) affirms that each time children meet

familiar words again, they have a change; it suggests that a new word has to appear at least six

times before having a change to be learned. When talking about vocabulary, it is worth keeping

in mind the use that each student gives to the word to communicate what she/he means. Indeed,

the scholar claims that the use of early words often refers to do actions and, through the context,

the intended meaning is quite clear. Locked (as cited in Cameron 2001) supports this idea by

asserting that children use words in their speech long before having full understanding of them.

In this matter, Nation (2001) argues that vocabulary teaching aims at helping learners build up

knowledge of words in ways to enable learners to use the language efficiently. Overall, learning

vocabulary is a gradual process that largely depends on the amount of exposure of students to the

EFL language. From this view, teachers are not only motivating and guiding agents of this

process, since they propose learning activities that go beyond the learning of form and meaning

of a word, fostering situations that allow understanding multiple use of a word.

This study undertakes Cameron’s (2001) insights on the implications of learning a word:

its form, its meaning and its use. First, have knowledge in relation to “how it sounds, how it is

spelt, the grammatical changes that can be made to it” (p. 78); wich corresponds to receptive,

phonological orthographical and grammatical knowledge in table 1below. Second, meaning in

light of “its conceptual content, and how is relates to other concepts and words” (p. 78), wich

entails conceptual and colocation knowledge in table 1 beneath. And third, its use referring to “its

patterns of occurrence with other words, and in particular types of language use” (p. 78), wich

30

refers to memory and pragmatic knowledge in table 1. Based on these aspects, this study

understands vocabulary learning as having receptive, phonological orthographical and

grammatical knowledge (form); conceptual and colocation knowledge (meaning); as well as

memory and pragmatic knowledge (use). In this sense, this research study responds to the needs

revealed, and to what extent teacher-developed materials promote learning vocabulary

considering the immediate context of learners and their interests, going beyond the accumulation

of words or their purpose to attain higher scores. Indeed, it is essential to provide students with a

series of helpful procedures to help them feel at ease. The next table illustrates the three aspects

stated above

Table 1.

Different Aspects of Word Knowledge. Selected from Tapias (2018) based on Cameron (2001).

Knowing About Word Type of knowledge What is involved Receptive knowledge To understand it when it is spoken /written Memory To recall it when need it Conceptual knowledge To use it with the correct meaning Knowledge of spoken form: phonological knowledge

To hear the word and to pronounce it acceptably, on its own, and its phrases and sentences.

Grammatical knowledge To use it in a grammatically accurate way; to know grammatical connections with other words.

Collocation knowledge To know which other words can be used with it. Orthograpical knowledge To spell it correctly. Pragmatic knowledge of style and register To use it in the right situation.

Connnotational knowledge To know its positive and negative associations, to know its associations with related words.

Metalinguistic knowledge To know explicity about the words, e.g its grammatical properties.

Vocabulary learning principles. This section aims at making sense of vocabulary

learning and the way to approach it efficiently according to diverse contexts where language

learning occurs. Hunt and Beglar (as cited in Schmitt, 2008), propose seven principles to

approach vocabulary learning. (a) Provide opportunities for the incidental learning of vocabulary;

(b) diagnose which of the 3000 most common words learners need to study; (c) provide

31

opportunities for the intentional learning of vocabulary; (d) provide opportunities for elaborating

word knowledge; (e) provide opportunities for developing fluency with known vocabulary; (f)

experiment with guessing from context; and (g) examine different types of dictionaries and teach

students how to use them. Based on the teaching and learning process in my school, I privileged

principles associated to incidental and intentional learning of vocabulary to put into practice

through opportunities provided to elaborate word knowledge, and enhance the use aimed at

analizing how teacher-developed materials help students as active agents of vocabulary learning.

Concerning the way teachers approach words, understood as a cumulative process, as

mentioned above, Nation (2001) proposes six principles: (1) Keep the teaching simple and clear,

without complex explanations; (2) relate the present teaching to past knowledge by showing a

pattern or analogies; (3) use both oral and written presentation - write it on the board while

explaining it; (4) give most attention to words that are already partly known; (5) tell the learners

if it is a high frequency word that is worth noting for future attention; (6) do not bring in other

unknown or poorly known related words like near synonyms, opposites, or members of the same

lexical set. This research study intends to put in evidence the first four principles in teacher-

developed materials in relation to conditions fostering the learning process.

Vocabulary learning strategies. To learn and use vocabulary more effectively, it is key

to know proper strategies to meet learning needs. On this subject, O´Malley and Chamot (1990)

recommend three main cathegories: “metacognitive, cognitive y social/affective” (p. 8). Besides

this, Oxford (1990) claims that direct strategies are those that “require mental processing of the

language… memory, cognitive and compensation” (p. 37). Meanwhile, Oxfod and Crookall

(1990) report four groups of techniques to know a word from a communicative perspective for

any of the four language skills which are “descontextualizing, semi-contextualizing, fully

contextualizing and adaptable” (p. 9). By contrast, Cohen (1996) stresses language learning

strategies having the “explicit goal of assisting learners in improving their knowledge in a target

32

language” (p. 3); and language use strategies “on employing the language that learners have in

their current interlanguage” (p. 3). In short, a selection of learning strategies suiting the students

should not only be made but also evinced in teacher-developed materials, showing that they

contribute to the learning of vocabulary among YLs.

Having conceptualized and characterized the second construct underpinning the current

study; next, I elaborate on meaningful learning, the third theoretical construct undelining it.

Meaningful Learning

In the process of education, meaningful learning occurs when both the content presented

to the student connects to their immediate environment, and students’ motivation yields their

willingness. To this respect, meaningful learning represents a pedagogical approach that

considers the process of learning through a close relationship to students’ context (Novak, 2011).

Besides, meaningful learning focuses on learners’ cognitive development, disregarding the

traditional teacher-centred perspective where the teacher was the protagonist in the process of

education. Likewise, meaningful learning implies an assertive standpoint to examine traditional

teaching practices, and rethink options for research and innovation in the pedagogic field.

Conceptualizing meaningful learning. The general concern about out-of-date failing

educational systems to promote the enhancement of language skills to prepare children for the

future, was strongly based on the sense of students’ duty and responsibility. By contrast, younger

generations have different motivational profiles linked to their interests, emotions, and

engagement. In addition, innovations emerge at a faster pace (European Parliament, 2014).

Besides, a remarkable change in the pedagogic field in 20th century, was the beginning of

meaningful learning (Novak, 1993). Additionally, the meaningful learning theory developed by

Ausubel (1981) focused on the refusal of traditional educational concepts, and built a new

perspective that emphasizes on the process of learning previous concepts by reinforcing new

constructions. The essence of meaningful learning entails that “symbolically expressed ideas are

33

similar in a non-arbitrary way, but substantial (not the letter cake) with what the student already

knows, notably some essential aspect of their knowledge structure” (Ausubel, 1981, p. 2). Thus,

this approach to learning requires an attitude towards learning on the part of the student. That is,

willingness to relate new concepts with their cognitive structure, as the case of images, symbols

conveying certain meaning, a situation or a problem.

Meaningful learning is at present, one of the most advantageous and applied learning

theories to substitute traditional practices based on the rote, and conceives the learning process as

a complex, logical, and coherent construct, in which the knowledge acquisition must be centered

on “problem solving” (Mayer, 2002, p. 227). From that perspective, Ausubel (1981) considers

that meaningful learning goes beyond of a simple attitude of students, and involves two main

complex topics: the nature of material and its pertinence about students’ interest and context; and

the students’ learning structures to build the new knowledge. Thence, both topics yield a whole

analysis and development of a theory that entails external and internal factors involved in the

teaching and learning process, turning class experiences into meaningful learning.

Concerning the previous approach, it is relevant to underline teacher-developed materials

as logical and pertinent resources to increase and improve the learning process, experiences and

results. To explain this approach in detail, Ausubel (1981) analyzes two fundamental conditions

that must be considered in MD: the material has to respond to an intentionality, pertinence and

pre-existing referent; this condition will turn the material in a meaningful logic means for the

students’ learning improvement, and the intentionality of material joints a previous structure in

students’ cognizance, allowing a new knowledge construction. The scholar asserts, that

meaningful learning happens not only when “the new material is intentional and substantially

related to the corresponding and pertinent ideas in the abstract sense of the term. It is also

necessary that such relevant ideological content exists in the cognitive structure of the particular

student” (p. 3). The materials in an EFL context become valuable resources that facilitate the

34

student's acquisition of new knowledge and skills development through experiences that promote

motivation, interest, and creativity to build and learn vocabulary.

In the same way, Shuell (as cited in Rivera, 2004) highlights three complex phases:

initial, like previous concepts; intermediate, some elements of the new knowledge is acquired;

and terminal, when the bases to new knowledge constructs take place. Afterwards, the

meaningful learning perspective exposes a logical of phases and elements that turn this theory

into a practice to implement in the classroom as a significant pedagogical method.

Consequently, it is necessary to remark how the meaningful learning theory was

restarted and enriched by Novak (2010), who founded an imperative method to develop his

pedagogical knowledge and experiences on the meaningful learning theory. Likewise, the author

analyzes the bases for meaningful learning established by Ausubel (1981) and considers some

essential elements to underline and rebuilt a new definition about this theory. For Novak,

“Meaningful learning underlies the constructive integration of thinking, feeling, and acting

leading to empowerment for commitment and responsibility” (p. 23). Thence, it is possible to

promote changes in the cognitive structure of YLs, when the contents of materials include

situations that imply the use of human capabilities such as describing, categorizing, comparing,

reflecting and being committed learning.

As stated above, meaningful learning is a guideline for the teaching and learning

process in my school context; it fosters the evaluation of the way the activities proposed teacher-

developed materials allow YLs to associate new information to prior cognitive structures. In Ausubel’s

words, cognitive learning meaningfully is possible in light of three principles: “ the material …

have potential meaning.., the learner must possess relevant concepts and propositions…to anchor

the new learning and assimilate new ideas… and the learner must choose… the new information

to his/her cognitive structure in a non-verbatim, substantive fashion” (Novak, 2013, p. 15). To

deal with these aspects, teachers offer YLs situations to foster an active role to share and explain

35

their experiences to reinforce aspects such as organization of ideas, incorporation of new

concepts to their cognitive interweave, and search of new meanings and concepts.

In addition, Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) argue another relevant aspect in

meaningful learning to the strength on collaborative learning. Their theory contemplates common

elements, process, and phases requiring group work to increase learning results and problem

solutions. It involves “cooperative group work benefits students in social and behavioral areas as

well, including improvement in student selfconcept, social interaction, time on task, and positive

feelings toward peers” (p. 8). From this view, this research responds to the necessity of unveiling,

how the teacher-developed materials foster situations for collaborative learning, through activities

that show how students that work together maximize their own and others’ learning. For this

study meaningful learning in learner centered, promotes interaction between teacher-learner and

proposes activities that maximazes human capabilities such as describing, categorizing,

comparing, reflecting and being committed learning.

Having addressed the three theoretical constructs that inform this study, the next chapter

describes its methodological design encompassing both the research and pedagogical designs.

36

Chapter III

Methodological Design

This chapter portrays the research design aimed at establishing the criteria of evaluation

for teacher-developed materials that foster vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach

among young learners in a private school.

Research Design

This section depicts the research paradigm, approach, the type of study, the participants

and instruments for data gathering.

Research paradigm. The sociocritical paradigm emerged in response Positivism,

promoting individual action and reflection. It seeks to release from imposed structural laws,

principles and theories that did not fit issues of social justice or related to marginalized people in

our society that need to be addressed. Based on Habermas’ insights, a critical approach puts into

practice actions to favor human growth, where the term emancipation refers to the “ability of the

individual to reflect on reality to respond thus to the injustices and inequalities of society” (as

cited in Fernández, 1995, p. 246). For Arnal (1992), the sociocritical paradigm is an empirical

and interpretative science of the reality aimed at finding solutions to the problems inside the

communities, and attaining social changes involving the community members. Acknowledging

that critical pedagogy appeared as an alternative for instrumental teaching methods highlighting

the role of teaching as a fundamental element to develop learners’ critical reasoning of essential

social issues within their context. That is to say, teachers should ponder their role as “agents of

permanent change” (Núñez & Téllez, 2009, p. 184) who must work to “educate students to take

risks and stuggle, within the dominant relationships, so that they may be able to modify the

terrain on which the existence is lived” (Giroux, 2003, p. 155). In essence, it is a duty of teachers

as knowledgeable actors to do their best in fostering their students’ consciousness of their own

realities to enable them to transform adversities into opportunities. This can be done through the

37

content, type of activites, learning strategies, and methodologies proposed in the language

teaching and learning materials. For this reason, by doing research focused on the evaluation of

materials, there are possibilities to resist the decontextualization of knowledge, methods,

contents, and learning strategies present in teacher-developed worksheets in Colegio Mayor de

San Bartolomé. The sociocritical paradigm frames this study, where inquiry and reflecting

processes allow not only to give solutions to the particular problems in the reality of my school

context, but also to strengthen my role as teacher, researcher and materials evaluator with a

questioning attitude to raise the quality of teaching and learning on EFL resources.

Research approach. Considering the purpose of this study to evaluate teacher-developed

materials to foster young learners’ vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach, the

qualitative research approach contributes to reveal the aspects stated above. Denzin and Lincoln

considered this research model as “an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means

that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or

to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (as cited in Ritchie &

Lewis, 2003, p. 3). Hence, it is important to identify the relevant aspects and needs to

characterize the object of study. Similarly, Bernal (2010) suggested this model to understand a

social situation as a whole, regarding its dynamics with the main objective of “conceptualiz[ing]

about the reality, based on information obtained from the group or people studied” (p. 60). Thus,

from the interpretation of the reality that is the object of study, it is possible to generate

knowledge from the observations, giving a whole possibility of answers to the research question.

Strauss and Corbin (as cited in Ritchie & Lewis, 2003) affirmed that this type of research

“produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (p.

3). From these views, the qualitative researcher plays an important role in exploring, discovering

and understanding the information obtained from that reality in relation to the subject of study.

38

Concerning data collection instruments this approach allows a variety of instruments.

Amon them we encounter “observational methods, in-depth interviewing, group discussions,

narratives, and the analysis of documentary evidence” (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 3). In this study

I opted for an evaltuion matrix, a focus group interview, and a structured interview, which

allowed me to collect pertinent information. Thus, the qualitative approach is reliable to identify

qualitative and descriptive findings, in contrast with those research methods in which the

interpretation of data is based on statistics and numbers.

According to the conditions and characteristics of the school context where the materials

are designed by teachers, the qualitative research approach allows to address this reality with the

purpose of understanding and transforming it. Besides, this methodology seeks to explain and

bring the characteristics and aspects that make up the materials to light, following the curricular

guidelines of the school. Likewise, the qualitative approach follows the research process from a

flexible perspective, oriented towards the discovery and interpretation of the existing reality with

the purpose of analyzing, describing and generating meanings from data collection maintaining

an open and dynamic character during the research process, where theory and practice yield

constant reflection and dialogue.

Research method. This study follows the procedures for evaluation research. In this

regard, this type of investigation is related to the action of appraising an experience, a process or

a certain element; to determine if it meets and succeeds in accordance with the objectives for

which that object of analysis was created. For a comprehensive assessment on an object of study,

Escudero (2016) pointed out the evaluative research as a “a type of applied research that affects

social objects, systems, plans, programs, participants, institutions, agents, resources, etc., that

analyzes and judges their static and dynamic quality according to multiple rigorous scientific

criteria and standards” (p. 4.). Considering that, for the author the rol of the evaluator is

39

characterized by the responsibility to work and elaborate from their diverse diagnoses, proposals

of action taking into account the different actors involved in the investigation.

Besides analyzing ans apprassing of the object of analysis, Powell (2006) defined

evaluation research as “a specific research methodology… as a type of study that uses standard

social research methods for evaluative purposes” (p. 117). Also, Powell (2006) defined this

research method such a systematic process that “involves collecting data about organizations,

processes, programs, services, and resources; it is a process for enhancing knowledge and

decision making” (p. 118). In essence, evaluation research leads the purposes of this study as it

unveils what and how the EFL materials designed by the teachers fufill the general and specific

objectives for which they were developed, which in this case is vocabulary learning through the

meaningful approach. Besides that, it assesses the learning process undergo to suggest possible

alternative for their improvement or reform, taking into account the context and the actors

involved.

On the subject of evaluating materials there are several theoretical frameworks proposed

by scholars like Cunningsworth (1995), Grant (1987), Littlejohn (2001), Litz (1990), Masuhara

and Tomlinson (2008), Núñez et al. (2009) Sheldon (1988) and Ur (1996), which have been

contemplated as important sources to propose a contextulized framework presented in an

evaluation matrix (See Appendix A) to evaluate the materials developed at Colegio Mayor de San

Bartolomé. The sinsthesis of all these criteria is presented above in the section entitled

frameworks for materials evaluation. The evaluation method allowed me to make sense of the

materials created by the school teachers, which are aimed at helping students learn vocabulary

through the meaningful learning approach.

Type of study: Due to the nature of my research study, documentary research is proposed

in accordance with the main objective of this investigation. In fact, documentary research is the

one in which several sources, usually written, are consulted to go into detail about a topic. In

40

view of that, Morales (2003) attested the possibility of “reading, analysis, reflection and

interpretation of documents” (p. 2), whether printed, electronic and audiovisual, and mentioned

the reading and writing process “as construction processes meanings” (p. 2). In relation to

reading, the researcher decides suggested the incorporation of meaningful texts to the project, to

build up new knowledge to understand a specific reality. In regard to writing, as well as reading,

it is present throughout the process, aiming to share “the product of inquiry, reflections,

observations, experiences and readings” (p. 3). In the same breath, the authors Cazáres, Christen,

Jaramillo, Villaseñor and Samudio (1990) determined that this kind of investigation “depends

fundamentally on the information that is collected or consulted in documents” (p. 18). In this

way, the information gathered through written documentary sources such as books, newspapers,

magazines, notarial acts, treaties, surveys or written conferences, and in this case worksheets,

provide information or give an explanation of a particular reality or event.

With the abovementioned assertions in mind and considering the importace of written or

printed data to allow for a qualitatige evaluation of materials, other scholars emphasized on the

aspects pertaining to the problem to be understood. On this matter, Cohen, Manion and Morrison

(2002), declared the inputs already mentioned as primary sources, referring to them as “those

items that are original to the problem under study” (p. 161). This goes in accordance with Bailey

(1994), who ratified the documental analysis as a method where “any written materials that

contain information about the phenomena we wish to study” (p. 294). Indeed, Bailey mentioned

primary documents as those written for personal, organizational or institutional reasons. For the

purpose of this study, I evaluated institutional documents that were designed with pedagogical

purposes (worksheets) as result of a reflective process carried out by teachers in our private

school.

More precisely, all sort of written materials can be object of study with the intention of

making sense of them. To this respect, Green and Thorogood (2004) used the term document “to

41

refer widely to the whole range of written sources that might be available relating to a topic, and

by extension other artifacts that can be treated as documents” (p. 155), which includes everything

that is printed or written as the case of newspapers, reports, diaries, letters, research articles,

projects, job descriptions, organizational charts, manuals; and, visual resources as photos, art, x-

rays or records. From Green and Thorogood’s view, the documentary research is a very valuable

option in qualitative research, since it offers the researcher different perspectives to answer the

initial research question. In authors’ words, documents as data resources “can be ‘read’ in a

number of ways, depending on the orientations of the researcher and the research questions they

are addressing” (Green & Thorogood, 2004, p. 170). As a conclusion, for the purposes of this

study, the documentary research approach allows building knowledge in the field of material

evaluation by means of the inquiry, organization, analysis, interpretation and explanation of the

data obtained in the materials elaborated by the teachers for YLs. This research method is

valuable as it allows reconstructing and giving rise to both new information and new evaluative

arguments. Besides integrating all the significant elements, it can respond to the research

objectives this study.

Sources of additional information. Five English teachers of pre-school cycle: 1st, 2nd,

3rd, 4th and 5th grades, the school English monitor provided additional information on the

worksheets developed by the English teachers at Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé. Moreover, I

performed the dual role as a researcher and materials evaluator.

English teachers-text developers. The five English teachers in Colegio Mayor de San

Bartolomé, is a group consisted of four female teachers and one male, whose ages ranked, from

20 to 40 years. Two of the teachers have a Bachelor's degree in English and French, while one of

them holds a Bachelor's degree in Humanities with an emphasis on Spanish, English and French;

another teacher is a Bachelor in Basic Education with emphasis in English. In my case, I hold a

Bachelor's degree in Children Education with emphasis in English. Two of the teachers are

42

graduate from public universities, whereas the other three attended private universities. In

general, teachers have between 3 and 12 years in teaching experience in preschool and

elementary education. On this basis, two of them have had the possibility to teach the secondary

grades. Due to their level of English, they have the levels of B1 and B2 according to the Common

European Framework Reference (CEFR, 2002), and only one of the teachers has had the

opportunity to teach in bilingual schools.

Concerning their experience as materials developers, none of them have attended a course

or seminar on MD or designed pedagogical materials on professional basis or with local or

international publishing houses. Therefore, it is important to mention that the school does not

allow the use textbooks neither for teaching English, nor for any of the other subjects that make

up the curriculum. Thus, designing materials is part of the functions of the teachers, and a

responsibility included in the work contract. Under these circumstances, the authorship of the

teacher is not recognized in the preparation of the worksheets, nor is there an economic

retribution, since the responsibility for preparing the guides goes hand in hand with developing

the class plans and evaluations for the students.

English teacher monitor. In the institution where I work, there is a position called

“monitor”, whose functions are related to the supervision of teachers’ work, teacher meetings,

communication of the decisions made in the Academic Council to contributing to the learning

processes of the students, decisions with the team of teachers in the area to carry out institutional

activities during the year such as flag raising, celebration of the language day and spelling bee

contest. Likewise, the monitor is the person in charge of revising and approving the worksheets

designed by the teachers to be worked during the English classes. Nevertheless, she also does not

have training in the field of development of materials for the teaching and learning process in an

EFL context.

43

Data gathering instruments. The instruments used to collect data for this study were the

evaluation matrix for materials that promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful

approach, teacher’s artifacts (teacher developed worksheets), a focus group interview, and a

structured interview. All these instruments were previously piloted to make the necessary

adjustments. They were also validated by an expert and adjuted based on his observations (See

Appendix B).

Evaluation matrix for materials that promote vocabulary learning through the

meaningful approach. Based on Littlejohn’s (2001) framework, supported by Cunningsworth

(1995), Litz (2002), Sheldon (1998) and Núñez and Téllez (2009), this instrument allowed me to

state a set of categories informed by related codes relevant to evaluate the materials developed by

the school teachers, in terms of (a) layout and visual design; (b) aim and objectives of the school

curriculum; (c) variety of topics and activities; (d) organization and logical of activities; (e) types

of activities according to the meaningful learning approach; (f) activities to foster the

development of the four language skills; (g) vocabulary learning; and (h) the role of the materials

as a whole (See Appendix A). All these categories were fully described according to the items

they embeded (codes) and evaluated in terms of qualitative descriptors like good, fair, and could

improve, where good implies that the evaluation criterium was entirely meet: fair indicates that it

was partially complied; and could improve sugest that the criterium was not fulfilled.

Teachers’ artifacts. In my school context, the artifacts correspond to the teacher-

developed worksheets (See Appendix F) for 2nd, 3rd, and 5th grades. The sample worksheets to be

evaluated were selected considering the relevance sampling technique since it aims at selecting

all textual units that contribute to answering my research question (Krippendorff, 2004). Thus, a

single worksheet from each grade constitute the sample to be evaluated: 2nd, 3rd, and 5th grades.

Concerning teacher-made materials, Ur (1996) reported that they should be “relevant and

personalized, answering the needs of the learners in a way no other materials can” (p. 192). In

44

light of this, a worksheet is “a page (or two) of tasks, distributed to each student to do either in

class… intended to be written on, and usually taken in by the teacher to be checked” (p. 192).

Meanwhile, Núñez (2017) claimed worksheets as those materials developed for a particular

learning and teaching context focused “on fostering the development, or refinement of a single

language skill” (slide 76). Thence, the teacher should facilitate the student's learning through the

teaching activity, having in mind that the materials are mediators that ease a link with the

curriculum (Rico, 2012), and what they want to teach in response to the context and the specific

needs of the students. Next, there is a description of the guides and worksheets designed by the

teachers from preschool to 5th grades, which are assigned to the students at the beginning of each

academic term of the school year. They are developed within the quality management system

recognized as International Organization for Standardization ISO: 9001, in the format called

Educational Management Macro Process Guide, the version number varies every year. The

typestyle used is Century Gothic, size twelve, and the images appear in black and white.

The front page comprises the heading consisted of the name of the department and area. In

this case, Humanities - English as a Foreign Language, the year, grade, term, number of units; as

well as the name and class to be completed by the student. Next, there is chart with three aspects

to work during the term as fundamental knowledge, performance and standard assessment

criteria, concerning each of the language skills as follows: listening comprehension, reading

comprehension, oral production and writing production. To begin with, the fundamental

knowledge entails what is expected the student to learn. Secondly, the performance deals to what

the student is expected to do with what he/she learns. Thirdly, the standard assessment criteria

refer to the extent of what the learner can do.

Then, at the bottom of this box, there is a familiar topic related to prior knowledge that is

presenting progressively in each term from the general to the particular, under the focus of

communicative functions, the topics, grammar and vocabulary. After that, it includes the

45

Cambridge tests training directed to YLs and established to each grade: Starters, Movers and

Flyers. In the following pages, the activities show the application of five moments established by

the educational proposal of the school in light of the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm (Paradigma

Pedagógico Ignaciano, PPI), which are: context, experience, reflection, action and evaluation.

The second page presents the context as the first moment, planned either to watch a video or

listen to a song related to the topic, to perform a reading comprehension and answering questions

that have to do with the vocabulary presented in that song or video. The experience as second

stage, shows activities for the learner, either in pairs or in groups; to socialize their experiences

and opinions about the topic they have worked on through drawings or in writing, and using the

vocabulary studied in the first moment, which is the context. Following the , the third moment,

‘reflection’, implies the student’s personal work, the active participation of students to build their

knowledge and generate awareness of their familiar context, through oral and written production.

In short, this is the full chart to identify their classmates’ preferences. With regard to this action,

this fourth moment is based on the experiences and the reflections shared along the academic

term, in which the student puts the knowledge acquired into practice to construct his own craft

ideas (brochures, posters, pen pal letter, and pop-up book, among others) and participate in

games, contests, role-plays and oral presentations at the core of the conceptual references stated

at the beginning of the term. In the fifth stage, at the end of the term, the evaluation involves and

integrates the stages of the process as a whole: the aptitudes of each student, their achievements

and their responsibility facing the activities proposed (personal work, group work participation,

and special tasks); the competences acquired (linguistic, pragmatic and socio-linguistic), the

students’ individual management of concepts accomplished during the term; the students’

perception of the positive aspects or characteristics in which teachers can improve their

methodology; concluding with self- evaluation.

46

Throughout the printing of the document described above, the teachers followed the

American Psychological Association (APA) standards, and at the end of the document, there is a

chart comprising the date and the name of the teacher who prepared the guide, the name of the

teacher who revised it, and the name of the monitor who validated it. Two additional pages

contain the heading “annex” designed with the same physical characteristics of the guides: font

style and size, and images in black and white. In general, the activities presented in the

worksheets provide similar instructions such as: match the picture with the corresponding word,

label images with the corresponding word from a box, fill in the blank in a text, as well as answer

or complete with personal information or preferences, unscramble to form words, color, or

number the items, among others. Regarding the innovation of these teacher-developed

worksheets, they are developed by the school teachers in resistance to the use of EFL textbooks

since they do not respond to the students’ needs and interests, as they are not contextualized

materials. This resistance encourages the school administrative staff to invite the English teachers

to create their own materials for their classes.

Concerning innovation in a language teaching context, Markee (1993) defined this term

“as proposals for qualitative change in pedagogical materials, approaches, and values that are

perceived as new” (p. 231). Furthermore, Nuñez et al. (2012) stated that “innovation has a major

role in MD and that teacher-developed materials can be seen as an innovative practice in the EFL

classroom” (p. 24). As the authros further asserted that text developers make “decisions that are

based on their students’ needs and their understanding of how teaching and learning should be

addressed rather than simply meeting the requirements of a course syllabus” (p. 25). In line with

this view, Cooper (1989) suggested a framework based on the questions: “Who adopts? What?

When? Where? Why? and How? which must be constantly in the activity of language planning”

(as cited in Markee, 1993, p. 230). Consequently, the innovative teacher-devloped materials (the

who), underpinned by the meaningful learning approach (the how), are expected to foster

47

vocabulary learning (the what) among YLs in a EFL private taaching setting (the where) through

experiential activities (the how) that contribute to new knowledge schemes, integrating what

learners know with the new information for final appropriation. However, this correspondence is

subject to the evaluation proposed in this qualitative documentary research.

Structured interview. In qualitative research, the interview is used to obtain oral

information from a person through questions raised about the problem object of study. Besides

this, Gill, Stewart, Treasure and Chadwick (2008) confirmed this method of data collection as

“essentially, verbally administered questionnaires, in which a list of predetermined questions are

asked” (p. 291). Indeed, this interview technique offers advantanges such “to control the direction

of one-on-one conversations” and “to gain an in-depth understanding of a person's opinions and

experiences” (Morgan, 1988, p. 11). In its broader sense, Bogdan and Biklin posited it “to obtain

descriptive data in the subject's words so that the researcher can get an idea of how the subjects

interpret some part of the world” (As cited in Packer, 2013, p. 57). All in all, this instrument was

very useful to affirm and understand in depth the monitor’s perception of the materials developed

by the school teachers; it also revealed her degree of importance about the evaluation of materials

(See Appendix C).

Focus group interview. These formats have become popular popular in social research

(Bell, 2005). Also, they are “a special type of group interview that is structured to gather detailed

opinions and knowledge about a particular topic (Bader & Rossi, n.d., p. 5) since they give

“information about how people think, feel, or act regarding a specific topic (Freitas, Oliveira,

Jenkins & Popjoy 1998, p. 1). Thus, the focus group interview, allowed me to gather feelings,

perceptions, trusts, viewpoints and reasons from the school teachers who develop the teaching

guides on the aspects involved in the evaluation of materials (See Appendix B).

Ethical issues. As this study aimed at evaluating teacher-developed worksheets at

Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé, the inform consent was addressed to the principal of the

48

school to obtain his permission to review the school’s archival documents and collect data from

Englihs teachers and the monitor.

Informed consent. Before evaluating the teacher-developed worksheets, as a teacher-

researcher I informed the principal and the academic coordinator of the school about the

implications of this study for the teachers involved and the institution. The informed consent

letter (See Appendixd D) explained that as a teacher researcher I needed to collect data by means

of two instruments, among those a focus group interview and a structured interview. Finally, as a

teacher-researcher I had the responsibility to protect and respect teachers’ anonymity, integrity

and confidentiality. The teacher-researcher emphasized that she would use of the data collected

for research purposes eclusively.

Table 1:

Summary of Research Proposal Tittle: Evaluating Meaningful Teacher-Developed Materials for Vocabulary Learning

Research question: What is revealed in teacher-developed materials that promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among young learners (YLs) in a private school? Research Objectives: General objective: To analyze and evaluate the aspects revealed in teacher-developed materials that promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among YLs at a private school. Specific objectives. (a) To characterize the teacher-developed materials in terms of their pertinence and appropriateness, to foster vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among YL; (b) to describe vocabulary learning activities, in terms of basis, length, comprehension in spoken and written form, retrieval, pronunciation, correctness and use of vocabulary in contextualized oral and written production, such as greetings, personal information, describing family and talking about emotions; and (c) to assess the procedures to attain meaningful learning that teacher-developed materials offer to YLs when associating new information to previous cognitive structures, in opposition to rote learning and rote memorization. Research paradigm: Sociocrítical Research approach: Cualitative

Method: Evaluation research Type of study: Documentary Research

Units for the Evalution

Evaluation unit: This unit corresponds to the wole universe to be evaluated, which entails the teacher-developed worksheets for preschool, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th grades. Sampling unit: This unit corresponds to the teacher-developed worksheets for 2nd, 3rd, and 5th grades, which were selected considering the relevance sampling technique to select all textual units that may contribute to answering my research question (Krippendorff, 2004). Thus, a single worksheet from each grade constitute the sample to be evaluated: 2nd, 3rd, and 5th grades. Registry Unit: This unit encompases a teacher-developed worksheet per grade (2nd, 3rd, and 5th).

Additional Sources of Information 5 English teachers 1 English teacher Monitor who assists the academic director of the school (Source: own elaboration, July 2018)

49

Table 2:

Evaluation Moments and Procedures Procedures Activities Instruments

Pre-configuration of the units to be evaluated (teacher-developed worksheets)

- Characterization of the selected teacher-developed worksheets from preschool- to 5th grade.

Matrix to evaluate of the teacher-developed worksheest

Configuration of the units to be evaluated

-Registering the information in the evaluation matrix, conducting the structured and the focus group interview, and transcribing the inteviwes for interprettion of interviewees’ discurses

- Matrix to evaluate of the teacher-developed worksheest

- Protocol for structured interview -Protocol for the focus group interview

Reconfiguration of the units to be evaluated

- Color-coding the information form the evaluation matrix and from the inteviwees’ discurses

- Constructing research categories related to teacher-developed worksheets from preschool- to 5th grade.

- Matrix to evaluate the teacher-developed worksheest

- Structured interview -Focus group interview

(Source: own elaboration, July 2018)

Having presented the methodological design that appraised this documentary research study, the

next chapter describes the data analysis procedure in light of the research categories.

50

Chapter IV

Data Analysis

Data Analysis Procedure

To achieve coherence with the objective of this qualitative documentary research study,

framed by the sociocritical paradigm and supported by the evaluation research, here in I reveal the

aspects in teacher-developed materials that promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful

approach in YLs in a private school. This chapter presents the outcomes of the analysis of data

gathered through instruments: teacher’s artifacts that were scrutinized based on crucial aspects

for materials development, meaningful learning and vocabulary learning and registered in an

evaluation matrix; a focus group interview; and a structured interview.

Research Categories

To show the salient issues, recurrent patterns, established commonalities and relationships

among them, the qualification of the related qualitative codes informing the six research

categories with the criteria entirely fullfilled, partially fulfilled or not fulfilled as proposed in the

evaluation matrix (See Appendix A). This qualitative evaluation of teachers-developed

worksheets is represented in bar charts per qualitative criteria. Due to limitations in the number of

pages, the reader finds a sample of the evaluated materials in Appendixes F, G and H.

Subsequently, the transcripts of both the focus group and structured interviews are included to

support the research categories from which qualitative codes are disclosed to understand the

peceptions of teachers as materials developers. Lastly, a critical analysis of the results is done

considering the theoretical constructs underpinning this study.

Engaging layout and design. As shown in Bar chart N°1 below, the evaluation matrix

evinced that the teacher-developed worksheets accomplished fullfilled in the qualitative criteria

entirely. “It is free of mistakes” in the three grades evaluated. Similarly, in the qualitative criteria

“tittles are numbered, written clear and appropriately” materials evinced entirely fullfiled in two

51

grades, and partially fullfiled in the other grade. Nevertheless, materials did not fullfiled the

qualitative criteria “font and size letter are appropriate and contain a table of content” in any of

the three grades (Appendix F, p. 101) Additionally, in the qualitative criteria “the printing is high

quality” the material showed partially fullfiled in two grades but did not fulfill the goals in one

grade (Appendix H, p. 116). These are crucial aspects in the development of materials, as argued

by Núñez et al., (2004), teachers as materials developers should “use legible fonts that are not too

elaborated and can easily be read” as well as “distribute the information and pictures in a visually

attractive layout so that looking at and reading is not tiresome” (p. 133). Moreover, Lamb (2011)

remarks on “visual appeal … to grab the interest of your reader but also to help the reader

remember the details of your message” (p. 14). Thence, by appropriately combining aspects like

the font, illustrations and balance of pictures and text, materials may result in suitable teaching

and learning resources with the potential to generate better learning environments. For these

reasons, teachers need to be informed in relation to the theoretical foundation and practical

insights for materials development prior to starting the development of their own materials. This

might be the result of the existing idea regarding MD as “an essentially atheoretical activity”

(Heilenman, Richards & Samuda, as cited in Harwood, 2010, p. 3). Thence, undergraduate and

postgraduate programs should educate English teachers on the field of MD to raise their

awareness on vital aspects to be considerd when desining materials for their classes. Similarly,

the transcripts of the focus and structured interviews corroborate this aspect.

In reference to the qualitative criteria “clear colorful images, illustrations, draws and

tables”, the worksheets for two grades were qualified with partially fullfiled, while the other

grade was qualified with not fulfilled (Appendix F, p. 106 and Appendix G, p. 113). Indeed,

Núñez et al. (2004) recommend to “use eye-catching color in your resources and make sure they

are readable” (p. 133). Likewise, Tomlinson (2013) declares that learners “prefer the colorfully

decorated pages of current textbooks as opposed to… black-and-white line drawings” (p. 161).

52

On this basis, presenting colorful elements on EFL materials, encourages visual stimulation and

draw learner’s attention, improving teaching and learning processes. This goes in accordance

whit Ortiz (2014), who conceives color as a didactic resource that favors the “predisposition to

learning and promotes wisdom, clarity, knowledge and safety” (p. 12). From this point and

considering lack of color on the worksheets evaluated, it is strongly recommended to include

colorful images, illustrations and other main components in teachers-developed worksheets.

Since YLs live in a world loaded by visual stimulus, teachers as materials developers should

consider appealing layout and desing to present meaningful and attractive materials that impact

YLs.

Although three of the four teachers interviewed expressed that they would prefer colourful

images to have additional good-looking materials, they affirmed that their materials are attractive

to learners due to the high-quality printing and enough black and white pictures. In this regard,

the English teacher monitor corroborated the idea of good presentation of the worksheets as they

take into account visual components. The following transcipts verify their perceptions.

“I am convinced that the material that I develop material is good, cool and flashing”, “I try that everything that has a guide tells a story, that an image by itself tells a story about sometime or something” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview)

“The material is attractive to students because we care about the visual elements that handle large spaces, the sharpness of the image, the relevance of the image related to what the material is wanted” [sic] (trans) (Strutured interview)

Regarding qualitative criteria “materials are attractive” teacher-developed worksheets for

the three grades evaluated achieved partially fulfilled. According to Barnard and Zemach (2003),

“layout should always be carefully considered; an otherwise excellent text and activity can be

ruined simply by a badly designed presentation on the page” (p. 317). As well as this, Tomlinson

(2013) considers appealing layout as a necessary component which demonstrates “to students the

interest the teacher has invested in them and are likely to possess greater face validity,

encouraging students to engage with the activities” (p. 402). In general, when teachers bear in

53

mind attractiveness in materials as a response to YLs particularities, they may rise motivation and

interest in students’ learning processes as learners notice that teacher is concerned about the neat

presentation of the activities. On this matter, Rutter (1998) argues the importance of creative

layouts in the MD process where teachers might use “type, color, paper and format, along with a

pinch of intuition and a dash of inspiration” and “the best layouts reveal that the designer trusts

his or her instincts to know what is appropriate for the intended audience” (p. 4). Therefore, it is

pertinent to include tittles, illustrations, tables, diagrams, and texts to awake YLs’ interest,

motivation and engagement, to help them comprehend content, and make sense of new

information in a meaninglful way. The following barchart evinces qualitative criteria.

Bar chart N°1. Evaluation Matrix of Engaging Layout and Design

Source: Own elaboration

Objectives of the school curriculum. As observe in Bar chart N°2 beneath, the

evaluation matrix indicated that the teacher-developed worksheets achieved the indicator entirely

fulfilled in the qualitative criteria “the objectives are specified in both content and performance

terms” in two of the grades evaluated; meanwhile, the other grade attained partial fullfilment.

Based on Nunan’s insights (as cited in Nuñez et. al., 2009) definition, objectives “are particular

ways of formulating or stating content and activities” (p. 34). In words of Ramírez (2004),

teaching materials really impact and awaken the desire for learning when the teacher “clearly

know his/her students and his/her objectives to develop / adapt an activity for a particular

54

teaching aspect” (p. 6). Therefore, teachers should know the characteristics and particularities of

the learners, negotitate the most appropriate content and activities for them, and state the learning

objectives in accordance with the English program, with the purpose of increasing learners’

motivation and commitment towards the learning objectives.

Conversely, the teacher-developed worksheets for the three grades indicated partially

fulfilled, in the qualitative criterium “the objectives are related to learner’s needs, interests and

life experiences” and “the objectives are relevant to students’ local sociocultural context”

(Appendix H, p. 116). Similarly, in the qualitative criteria “materials rise learner’s interest in

further English language study”, one grade achieved partially fulfilled (Appendix H, p. 118) and

the other two grades revealed not fulfilled. According to McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara

(2013), a language teaching program “may be designed ‘to meet the needs of learners who need

to improve their ability to communicate” (p. 5). For this reason, it is essential to offer both

relevant topics to raise learners’ curiosity and attention, and respond to the specific learners’

needs. More precisely in Montijano’s (2014) perspective, “If what is offered by the textbook is

not close to what motivates learners, the lesson may be considered to be irrelevant” (p. 271).

Consequently, for successful teaching and learning processes, it is crucial to link the learning

objectives to YLs’ real life experiences, sociocultural patterns, and particular needs, interests, and

concerns, to lean in a meaningful manner and appreciate the practical value of learning.

Concerning the qualitative criterium “develop and draw cross cultural knowledge” and

“the social and cultural contexts exposed in the PEI are explicit on materials”, the three grades

evaluated reported not fulfilled (Appendix F, p. 101). Littlejohn (2012), purported that “apart

from their pedagogic value, materials are cultural artifacts… rooted in a particular time and

culture”, then they must be “shaped by the context in which they occur” (p. 283). From a critical

pedagogy concept, the literature for language teaching programs influence traditional teaching

methods reducing them in a series of concepts and techniques arranged, prescribed and stablished

55

by experts (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). The scholar further declared the postmethod as an option to

empower teacher educators in autonomy “to generate location-specific, classroom-oriented

innovative strategies” (p. 33) and suggested that teachers should be familiarized “by critical

understanding of the sociocultural context” as well as be free “from the beaten path of

methodological certainties and specialisms” (p. 32). Conveniently, teachers must assume their

role as reflective educator from a critical stance, resisting those imposed contents and methods by

addressing YLs’ particular realities such as injustice, socioeconomic inequities and sociopolitical

marginalization that lead us to be more sensitive teachers.

In regard to the criteria abovementioned, three of the four teachers declared that the

objectives of school curriculum are stated in accordance with what children are expected to learn.

Nevertheless, the four teachers pointed out lack of time to make a diagnosis at the beginning of

the year as a starting point to identify children’s needs, interest or experiences. By contrast, the

monitor declared that every year the English area updates the PIA involving the content, the level

of language, regarding students’ needs. These notes corroborate their affirmations.

“has lacked taking that diagnosis to land a little more to the area, take a little more time to give a resignification of what children like… because the objectives are clear and are consistent with the needs as far as possible” “I think not ... or it is something very minimal what one can work with respect to their interests” “It takes much more time to make a diagnosis with them to be clear about the needs, experiences, what they like” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview) “we analyze the type of population its own characteristics and then we set out work guides worksheets with what we have already projected from the experience from the previous year” (Strutured interview) [sic] (trans) Both teachers and the monitor remarked on their acknowledgement of the Ignatianity

pedagogical proposal, but they do not know the school PEI. These transcriptions from the

interviews support the abovesaid criteria.

“we are not contextualized with the PEI and then we can fall into a fault due to ignorance. But the PEI is Ignatianity” “Many of the teachers that we are here are unaware of this educational project and it is not clear to everyone what the school is and what the school is looking for.” “I know the Ignatian Paradigm, but the PEI I do not relate it” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview)

56

“It is difficult to talk about our guides and the material we design is generating this educational project when it is really outdated and most of the teachers do not know it in depth” [sic] (trans) (Structured interview)

In connection to the criterium “develop and draw crosscurricular knowledge” the teacher-

developed worksheets do not fill it (Appendix G, p. 110). Richards (2006) argues the importance

of connecting the language with other aspects of the curriculum where “English is not seen as a

stand-alone subject but is linked to other subjects” (p. 25). In view of this, teachers may propose

exercises in the materials to open YLs’ minds by presenting specific social issues from other

subjects, while simultaneously developing their critical thinking and learning new vocabulary.

On the basis of what has already been argued, two of the teachers consider that there is

not connection between English and other subject matters. Even though, they express that the

school is in the process of implementing the project to work on methodology. On the contrary,

the monitor emphasized on the aspect of transversality and articulation of the materials twith

other contents. Herein, there are some evidences thar illustrate the previously mention issue.

“At this time there is not a connection with other areas” “At this time it is not a material that is integrated with any other area” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview)

“it is important to further enhance this aspect of transversality and articulation with other contents in order not only to limit ourselves to the language in a particular situation” [sic] (trans) (Strutured interview) According to the evaluation matrix, there is heterogenety in the worksheets regarding the

qualitative criteria “encourage the learners to use the language for communicative purposes”

presenting variation in three grades. Additionally, in the qualitative criteria “materials rise

learners’ interest in further English language study”, in two grades it was not fulfilled, while the

other grade attained partially fulfilled. Núñez, et al., (2009) declare the importance of teacher’s

role to increase learner’s interest and engagement in learning processes and the best way to do is

to “demonstrate that students are essential to them and that they are the reason for communicating

and learning together through their attitudes, thoughts, and materials” (p. 21). What is more,

Richards and Rodgers (as cited in Rico, 2005) affirm that learners can “assume responsibility for

57

what they do in the classroom” and also, they “can evaluate their own progress” (p. 104). In view

of that, when the teacher encourages students’ communication and self-evalution of their

progress, they will feel recognized as subjects and thus, interested and motivated to learn, which

foster an independent attitude to communicate. As suggested by Sharkey, Girolimon, Meyer and

Proulx (2012) curriculum can come from the interaction between students, teachers and

experiences; it does not have to come from a textbook or in a box of materials from the district

office. Because of this, teachers ought to involve YLs’ role in the statement of the learning goals

and the objectives of the school curriculum. Taking into account this aspect, teachers will make

YLs feel identified, motivated and interested in the situations presented in teaching materials,

thus avoiding the dependence of teacher, and fostering YLs’ initiative to participate and achieve

the communicative purposes of the English language.

Although this is true, three of the four teachers believe that the interest and motivation of

students for developing the activities proposed in the worksheets, mainly depends on the

teachers’ attitude when getting to the classroom, since novel and attractive materials can be spoilt

if the teachers do not use them properly. Besides this, the monitor considers that the interest of

YLs in the materials depends on the teacher's use and how it connects with the reality of the

student. These excerpts illustrate the monitor and teachers’ answers.

“the material can be fabulous, but if the person who made it arrives without interest and without adequate motivation, what it conveys is not much” “by itself the material does not motivate the student to learn. I feel that they are other dynamics” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview) “The sense of promoting the interest for learning I really believe that it is not a work guide, it is rather the teacher's management of this resource” [sic] (trans) (Strutured interview)

58

Bar chart N° 2. Evaluation matrix of Objectives of the school curriculum

Source: Own elaboration

Activities selection. As appreciated in Bar chart N° 3, the evaluation matrix evinced that

the worksheets accomplished entirely fulfilled in the qualitative criteria “there are clear

instructions to develop each activity or task” for the three grades (Appendix G, p. 112). Also,

materials revealed entirely fulfilled for qualitative criteria “activities and tasks are selected

according to a realistic and motivational context” in two of the grades, and partially fulfilled in

the other grade (Appendix H, p. 117). However, in qualitative criteria “activities provide topics

and tasks according to specific learner’s levels, learning styles, interests and life experiences” one

of the grades achieved entirely fulfilled, while the other two grades partially fulfilled (Appendix

F, p. 102 and Appendix G, p. 113)

In qualitative criteria “the activities contemplate comparing, thinking, socializing and

changing student’s realities” the evaluation matrix revealed not fulfilled in the three grades

(Appendix G, p. 111). As stated by Núñez et al., (2009), in activities selection teachers should

take into account “usefulness in attaining the course purpose; suitability of students’ age,

interests, needs and expectations” and the possibility of adjusting activities “according to

students’ particular learning styles” (p. 180). Moreover, Rico (2010) suggests group work

activities, such as role-plays, problem solving tasks, dramatizations and simulations of a

particular situation, as significant to develop in learners both reflecting on real-life situations and

59

negotiations of meanings. Accordingly, in Rico’s (2010) words “teacher be prepared

pedagogically to create tasks in which such material becomes purposeful in simulated situations

of everyday life” (p. 331). So far, in the MD process it is equally important to contemplate

activities according to learners’ realities and contexts, as much as tasks proposed to accomplish

the learning objectives of the EFL program, where the negotiation of meanings increase both

cognitive development and vocabulary learning. As opposed to the repetitive and predictable

activities that the teachers in my school bring to the classroom, teachers must carefully rethink

the selection, design and presentation of relevant and meaningful learning activities to be

proposed for YLs to learn new words.

In relation to the qualitative criteria “there is a variety of meaningful exercises and

activities to practice the four language skills” the evaluation matrix showed not fulfilled in the

three grades (Appendix F, p. 102 and Appendix H, p. 117). Howard and Mayor (2004) declare

that materials must provide learners “opportunities to integrate all language skills in an authentic

manner” (p. 53). Along similar lines, Richards (2005) recommends to connect the four language

skills “since they usually occur together in the real world” (p. 9). Likewise, Núñez, Téllez and

Castellanos (2017b) suggest to “assist their [students’] on-going development of a balanced set of

skills and content” (p. 24).

In EFL teaching materials, it is paramount to propose listening, reading, speaking and writing

activities that endorse vocabulary learning in contextualized communicative situations.

Correspondingly, the four teachers agreed that it is possible to enhance two skills, mainly

reading and speaking. Besides, one of teachers proposes oral activities for the youngest learners

and reading and writing activities for the eldest learners. To this respect, the monitor corroborated

teachers’ views by saying that although the worksheets do not evidence the work on the four

integrated skills, the teachers can propose extra activities to develop other skills. The following

transcription exemplify the preceding teachers’ beliefs.

60

“For example, a writing activity can be converted in an oral activity, while child is writing, is also speaking and reading” “Sometimes the same guide gives you to develop more than one skill” “the four skills, I consider yes, we work … but it depends of the learning spreed of them” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview) “If the guide is a listening activity it is used to do a speaking activity, so that guide is functional for several skills at the same time” [sic] (trans)

(Structured interview)

In relation to qualitative criteria “activities provide practice exercises for final

achievement test according to the CEFR (MEN, 2002)”, the evaluation matrix evinced not fulfill.

This frame of reference for teaching, learning and evaluating a language, established an action-

based approach where the user of language is considered a social agent who uses specific

strategies, whether cognitive or emotional, to carry out a specific task in a specific context. In

light of this, when “the realization of these tasks involves carrying out language activities, they

need development (through the comprehension, expression, interaction or mediation) of oral or

written texts” (MEN, 2002, p. 15). Thus, in the processes of using and learning EFL, it is vital to

contextualized them to develp the four language skills. Thence, teachers should create teaching

materials that address students’ realities or social issues that surround them.

Nevertheless, two teachers affirmed that since the school’s PIA is based on the CEFR

(MEN, 2002), the activities and evaluations are designed accordingly. In the same way, the

monitor agreed on the fact that the guidelines of the CEFR are the basis for the English

curriculum, which is informed by the communicative approach. These stances are a sign of the

previously mentioned aspects supporting teachers’ perceptions.

“the final tests point to the standards and criteria that we have in PIA, these criteria are closely linked to the Common European framework” “it is sought that with certain types of activities contribute to the development of the skills raised in CEFR” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview) “the format and standards proposed by the CEFR are a very important and preponderant input in the material we have developed” [sic] (trans)

(Structured interview)

61

Bar chart N° 3. Evaluation matrix of Activities selection

Source: Own elaboration

Didactic organization and sequence. As noticed in Barchart N° 4, the evaluated

worksheets entirely accomplished the indicator fulfilled in the three grades for the qualitative

criteria “all the activities have a logical sequence to develop them” (Appendix G, p. 111).

Meanwhile, in the qualitative criteria “there is a balance among pictures, diagrams and

illustrations in relation to the text y” (Appendix F, p. 103), materials showed partially fulfilled in

two of the grades and not fulfilled in the other grade. Tomlinson (2013) reports that sometimes,

about half of the images presented in an EFL coursebook, are used only as decorative element, as

“a great waste of opportunity for the language learner and teacher” (p. 163). Since pictures, as

well as written and oral passages serve language learning purposes, it is advisable to strengthen

these aspects in the school materials.

Considering organization and sequence of materials, two teachers considered the learning

objective as the main aspect in MD process. Even though, other two teachers asserted that, to

propose the activities it is foremost to identify students’ previous knowledge and needs; they can

propose the activities to deepen in knowledge. The monitor also considered that the objective is

the main component in teacher-developed materials. The teachers’ answers portrait prior issues.

“the activity can be interesting and fun, but without purpose it does not take to where I want to have them” “To elaborate it, first we must start from the objective” “Having the objective and knowing their interests and needs, I try to develop the 4 skills” “if we do not know children ... it is very difficult to give depth to knowledge” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview)

62

“The central item should be the objective, what do I want to achieve… I am designing or what I am going to propose in class” [sic] (trans)

(Structured interview)

Regarding qualitative criteria “the activities are supported by learning strategies to foster

self-study purposes”, the evaluation matrix determined heterogeneity where the results varied in

the three grades. Rodríguez (2012) suggests that when teachers help learners “to discover …

strategies to make his/her process more rewarding and productive” (p. 186), learners would be

able to control their own learning process. Likewise, Islam and Mares (2014) refer to the

importance of materials when “helping learners acquire language outside the classroom or

without the guidance of the teacher” (p. 90). Then, teaching materials entailing learning strategies

help learners become aware of their own knowledge construction. Therefore, it is urgent to

inform teachers in this school about the existance of these strategies as a way to increase YLs’

learning in the EFL classroom and foster independent learning outside the school.

With respect to the qualitative criterium “the content is clearly organized according to

complexity” and “materials are organized according to the goals of the curriculum”, the

evaluation matrix evinced not fulfilled in the three grades (Appendix F p. 101, Appendix G p.

110 and Appendix H p 116). Graves (1997) mentions three approaches to organize both content

and activities such as: building (from the simplest to the most complex,) recycling (from more

concrete to more open-ended), and matrix (keeping a ‘feeding relationship’). Accordingly, the

organization of taks based on progressive degrees of complexity in response to the learning goals

of the curriculum favour the development of YLs’ cognition that simultaneously benefit their

learning of vocabulary.

Based on the previous results, the teachers mentioned diverse procedures to organize the

didactic sequence of materals such as the central topic, vocabulary presentation, curriculum

presentation, presentation activities and learning objectives, thus, YLs know what is expected

63

from them. The monitor suggested to organize the didactic sequence from the presentation,

practice, and production approach. These excerpts illustrate teachers’ ideas.

“a central theme, presentation of the vocabulary, practice and exercises and a part that can be socialized” “Present the activities that will be done, then the vocabulary, examples and then, practice to produce” “First present the curriculum to know what is going to be seen and the objectives” “First the objective, presentation of vocabulary, presentation of the material, socialization of what and development” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview) “First would be the introduction of the vocabulary or activation of previous knowledge, then a contextualization. Followed an example of the structure to be taught. Finally, a practice exercise for the student to test what they have learned and thus verify their understanding. An evaluative part, some check questions to verify comprehension” [sic] (trans)

(Structured interview) Bar chart N° 4. Evaluation matrix of Didactic Organizacion and Sequence

Source: Own elaboration

Types of activities according to the meaningful learning approach. As noticed in Bar

chart N° 5 below, the evaluation revealed that the worksheets partially fulfilled in the qualitative

criteria “activities promote interaction between teacher-learner and learner-learner” in the three

grades (Appendix F, p. 103-104). Qualitative criteria “the activities give to the learner

opportunities to reflect upon their own learning, values and beliefs” was not fulfilled by

worksheets in none of the three grades. As affirmed by McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara (2013),

“Group/pair work enables learners of different levels and learning styles to share and pool their

resources (e.g. linguistic knowledge, world or subject knowledge, strategies)” (p. 231).

64

Consequently, groupwork and pair group is proper for communicative language teaching

purposes. Also, Pineda (2004) refers to ‘Initiation-Response-Feedback’ as a useful model where

“feedback allows explanatory talk, enriched with dialogue and negotiation of meaning among the

participants” (p. 73). Similarly, Novak (2011) highlights the “need for negotiation of meanings

between students and between students and teachers (p. 2). As a result, pair and group work

activities allow the exchange of ideas and experiences, the negotiation of meaning, and the

possibility to learn from others, while being supported by the teacher’s guidance.

It is pertinent to favor YLs-YLs and teacher-YLs interactions through activities that boost

the collective building of knowledge as they develop complex thought, as remarked by Pineda

(2004) “meaning is built around social interaction” (p. 56). Hence, materials and activities that

are cognitively challenging develop learners’ cognitive potential, foster creativity, decision

making, recognition of others’ views and beliefs, and encourage leading roles in YLs’ process.

Teachers consider that YLs’ opinions, expectations and beliefs do not precede learning

processes since the class objective usually expects YLs to demonstrate the mechanical use of

grammar structures and vocabulary due to their low proficiency level. By contrast, from the

monitor’s view, the worksheets do not allow YLs to convey their beliefs or opinions. These

perceptions are documented in the excerpts selected from the interviews.

“In the case of the foreign language, it is difficult for them to express their point of view ... due to the limitation in the language use” “the spontaneity with which they do it in other subjects is not as effective in the English class, when expressing what they like is limited by the grammatical part” “they would like to write, produce… but they do not have the level” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview) “The material is skewed and limited to the student learning or what the teacher needs to verify” [sic] (trans) (Structured interview) In reference to qualitative criteria “the approach used is learner-centered”, the worksheets

unveiled partially fulfilled (Appendix F p. 107). According to Unesco (2004) (as cited in Núñez

et al., 2009), quality education should “promote learning-centered methodologies, develop

appropiate textbooks and learning materials” (p. 175). On this matter, Kumaravadivelu (2003)

65

suggests the learner-centered method to provide communicative opportunities for the learner to

put the TL into practice and to consider “the learner’s real-life language use for social

interaction… in communicative contexts” (p. 26). Privileging the learner is vital to interrelate the

Novak’s components (2013) in pedagogical scenarios: learners, teachers, the curriculum and the

context. The scholar attests that teachers should consider “the social context in which the

discipline operates …., and the kind of attitudes we hope to foster” (p. 6). This is a more

conductive setting to understand that the act of teaching is permeated by a pedagogical

intentionality, where learners and teachers make sense of the information given in an EFL

context.

Under such circumstances, it is advisable to revise the English curriculum of my school,

with the purpose of giving YLs an active role in the construction of knowledge, allowing them to

go beyond the mere repetition and memorization of isolated words or sentences. That is, teaching

materials focused on meaningful content, thought-provoking activities that rely on preexisting

cognitive scheme, and on the use of vocabulary with communicative purposes.

All teachers mentioned the meaningful aspects they deem explicit on their teaching

materials, such as YLs’ context and previous knowledge. One of the teachers considered that

prior knowledge is the main component of the meaningful learning approach. The monitor also

referred to the features already mentioned by the teachers; she said that materials first arise form

YLs’ interests, expectations, and the conceptual aspect. The following excerpts corroborate the

teachers’ opinions.

“The material that I develop is related to the closest context, so that they can ease the relationship of the meaning... of the words” “in short, the previous activity to remember the vocabulary ... that what is going to be presented have familiar words, from the context to facilitate the relation with the new content” “The emotional, motivational and cognitive part that meaningful learning works” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview)

“First of all, the teaching material is based on the interests, the expectations, the children's motivation towards language and work in the classroom. Additionally, time for reflection, argumentation, creation and application of knowledge. On the other hand, an important element is the conceptual part” [sic] (trans) (Structured interview)

66

Concerning qualitative criteria “the activities help to explore learner’s needs, difficulties

and expectations” the worksheets revealed not fulfilled (Appendix G p. 112). Núñez et al., (2009)

emphasize on “the search for developing materials that satisfy students’ learning objectives and

styles, preferences, and expectations” (p. 172). Likewise, Ramírez (2004) claims that “students

can really feel at ease using their learning preferences and abilities” (p. 7). The scholars ratify the

need of activities to meet learning styles and multiple intelligences (linguistic, mathematical,

spatial, bodily kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic), as important

features in the MD process. Hence, meaningful focus on the real abilities, learning styles,

interests and type of thought of the learners. In words of Núñez, Téllez and Castellanos (2017a),

“Teacher-developed materials ….are context-bound since they are responsive to local needs” (p.

34). Then, it is pertinent to suggest a deep reflection on the activities included in the worksheets

and evaluate if they meet classroom diversity, students’ motivation, engagement and

participation.

The teachers affirmed that the worksheets contributed to the enhancement of various YLs

talents through videos, songs, fine motor skills activities and pictures. Likewise, the monitor

sustained that activities allow students to develop skills and intelligences gradually and

effectively, although some are more solid than others. Notice teachers’ answers below.

“The worksheets greatly favor the different learning styles, for example the fact of interacting with the other or standing up” “Due to the nature of the area, handling the four skills ... the worksheets do favor multiple intelligences and the teacher is who fosters how these abilities are explored” “The cognitive for example for children who have listening skills, visual intelligence as in the case of children who are motivated more by an image, or also in the case of the child who can be kinesthetic” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview)

“perhaps there are more consolidated than others and it is important to keep this in mind because it is necessary to maintain balance in order to meet the real needs of each student” [sic] (trans) (Structured interview)

In relation to the qualitative criteria “activities allow learner to infer, describe, categorize

and compare information through exercises” the worksheets reached partially fulfilled in one

grade and not fulfilled in the other two grades. Núñez et al., (2004) suggest to search for “a

67

gradual construction of meaning by applying different levels of cognition” (p. 70). The authors

recommend challenging tasks that emphasize on critical thinking skills (contrast, compare,

identify cause- effect relationships, infer information, analyze implications and evaluate

information). By the same token, Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) sustain favorable effects

in the learning process when learners “construct and organize knowledge, consider alternatives,

engage in detailed research, inquiry, writing, and analysis, and to communicate effectively” (p.

3). Hence, by proposing cognitive, challenging activities, materials enhance thinking skills and

meaningful learning. In response to both, the constructivism approach in my school context and

the meaningful learning approach that informs the school materials, mandatory planning and

developing activities to foster cognitive processes in YLs, lead to learning vocabulary in context.

For one teacher, the thinking process depends on the learning objective, since not all

classes are to improve cognitive abilities. By contrast, other teacher referred to lack of time to

perform comparisons or analysis, even though description is done in oral way. The monitor

ratified that the worksheets are not enough to address all communicative and cognitive processes

expected according to the English curriculum and institutional guidelines. These teachers’

affirmations are documented in the following excerpts.

“That depends on the objective, not all classes are to compare categorize or analyze... we must focus on other processes” “Actually the material is not enough to compare, maybe because our method is to give the student” [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview)

“As I mentioned before, we are still on that path to strengthen the four skills and adjust the material to improve the processes of the area” [sic] (trans) (Structured interview)

68

Bar chart N° 1. Evaluation matrix of Meaningful learning approach

Source: Own elaboration

Vocabulary learning. As noted in Bar chart N° 7 below, the evaluation unveiled that the

worksheets accomplished entirely fulfilled in one grade and partially fulfilled in the other two

grades, in the qualitative criteria “vocabulary is contextualized and meaningful for students since

it refers to their life experiences” (Appendix F p. 103, Appendix G p. 111). Nevertheless,

materials do not fulfill the qualitative criteria “the distribution of vocabulary activities goes from

simple to complex according to the YLs level” (Appendix H p. 116). Oxford and Crookall (1990)

suggest the procedure of word grouping “by classifying or reclassifying the target language terms

according to one or more important attributes” (p. 14). Thence, word grouping can be done

depending on the type of word, the grammatical form, the topic, the language function or the

relation synonyms/antonyms. As well as this, Nation (as cited in Tomlinson, 2013) stresses that

in language teaching materials “high frequency words are the essential basis of all language use”.

Such variables favor proper procedures to present new vocabulary at the start of the lessons, and

to permanently expose learners to group word and their use in varied contexts.

Both, teachers and the monitor consider that the process of vocabulary learning must go

from the simplest to the most complex. However, one teacher considered that it can also be from

the most complex to the simplest, but it depends of YLs’ proficiency. The following evidences

illustrate these participants’ ideas.

69

"From the simple to the complex and go spinning those words to go into detail a little more" "Go from the simple to the complex taking into account the degree of difficulty” "I can take the pre-existing knowledge and start with something complex, but that depends on the level and age" [sic] (trans)

(Focus group interview) "From the simple to the complex but a vocabulary activity requires something visual that the student can easily remember" [sic] (trans) (Structured interview) The qualitative criteria “words are used in grammatically accurate sentences, making

connections with other words”, the materials uncovered not fulfilled in the three grades

(Appendix F p. 107, Appendix G p. 111). Cameron (2001) maintains that in beginner stages of

language learning “the breaking down and recombining of previously learnt chunks of language

is a process of grammar construction” (p. 98). Thus, teachers may afford grammatical knowledge

in vocabulary learning activities like songs, stories, dialogues, or rhythms, helping learners to

identify the recurrent English language structures. Although the school context addresses EFL

teaching from a communicative stance, it considers grammatical knowledge in teaching materials

to help YLs identify and appropriate common patterns and enhance comprehension and use of the

language.

In connection to the qualitative criteria “There are exercises to know a word and use it in

the right situation” (Appendix F p. 103-107) the worksheets evidenced not fulfilled in the three

grades. In Cameron’s (2001) words “learning words is a cyclical process of meeting new

worlds… [and understanding what] the words mean and how they are used in a foreign language”

(p. 74) for children “to be able to handle paradigmatic aspects of word meaning” (p. 79). On

account of this, materials should allow learners to recognize the use of words and their meanings

in different cultural contexts, skills and communicative uses.

While the monitor and the teachers agree on the use of a word in context, it is not explicit

in the worksheets, due to their concern about developing the communicative competence.

Teachers clarified that conceptual knowledge works along the classes through the explanation of

words. The teachers’ beliefs are exemplified in the next excerpts.

70

"It is planned from the grammatical and the communicative ... because if it were only to work vocabulary they would be prefixes and suffixes, and the worksheet would be different in itself" "If they are done is in class, but that one takes them into account to propose them in the worksheets is not done" [sic] (trans) (Focus group interview)

"In the worksheets, forming words is not something that is explicit, it works spontaneously during the class" [sic] (trans) (Structured interview)

On the other hand, the evaluation matrix uncovered that the worksheets do not fulfilled

the qualitative criteria “There are activities that allow to recall a word when YLs need it”

(Appendix G p. 113). Cameron (2001), reports that the teaching and learning word processes

should be concerned about “how to build up the memory of the word so that it is available for use

in the longer term” (p. 87). That is why, the scholar pointed out some vocabulary memorizing

activities such organizing themes, relations, antonyms, as well as general or specific hierarchies

or categories. This type of activities is favorable to register and consolidate new words in the

long-term memory. Conveniently, it is vital to adopt deliberate recall activities according to YLs

ages, preferences, realities, emotions appeal, and familiarity of topics.

In the qualitative criteria “There are activities for learners to understand a spoken or

written word” the worksheets reached not fulfilled in the three grades evaluated (Appendix F p.

105). Graves (2000) claims that phonology is the system to know and use the sound of the

language, which “In syllabuses is usually listed as pronunciation” (p. 44). Moreover, Momeni

and Reza (2012) posit that phonetic knowledge implies “how to use the word properly in a

context” (p. 2302). Thence, the phonetic knowledge enables both the comprehension of the

language and the pronunciation of new words. Considering that the pronunciation of English

words is generally different from their writing form, it is pertinent to include activities for

learners to get familiar with the sound system, which according to Graves (2000), entails sounds

to form words, rhythm and intonation.

Two teachers mentioned that the word-writing process presents difficulties because YLs

tend to write words as they sound. For teachers, this aspect requires a constant work of correction

71

and explanation. In their view, this is a natural confusion between L1 and L2, which they are

used to handling. Conversely, the monitor affirmed that the worksheets support the process of

distinguishing between the pronunciation of a word and its written form. The instances below

exemplify these issues.

“In relation to vocabulary there is a difficulty that I have been able to observe, they tend to read it as it would be said in Spanish. For example, librarian says ‘librarian’ and that requires a work of pronunciation and to be constantly explaining and correcting, it seems that there is no learning” “There is an effort of the teacher to perform phonological awareness exercises so that they begin to understand and see the differences, even if they understand when they see it written there is a shock and it is necessary to take them along the way” [sic] (trans)

(Focus group interview)

“as they grow they can acquire that sense that the pronunciation is different how it is written... to a certain extent worksheet do help them to improve their pronunciation because they see it and understand that many of the sounds how they are written are read [sic] (trans)

(Structured interview) Bar chart N° 7. Evaluation matrix of Vocabulary Learning

Source: Own elaboration

72

Chapter V

Conclusions and Pedagogical Implications

This chapter encompasses conclusions, pedagogical implications, recommendations, and

limitations derived from this research aimed at evaluating aspects revealed in teacher-developed

worksheets to promote vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among YLs in a private

school. It also presents the questions for further research.

Conclusions

This evaluation research evinced that the teacher-developed worksheets were not pertinent or

appropriate to foster vocabulary learning through the meaningful approach among YLs. A conclusion

that stands out refers to layout and design, and the objectives of the school curriculum. Although the

teachers follow a proofreading process to identify and correct mistakes in text before it is printed,

there are not common criteria about format, illustrations, or the balance between print and pictures

when developing the worksheets. Furthermore, there is not correspondence between the materials

evaluated and teachers’ perceptions. These findings suggest the need of pertinent criteria not only in

the edition, but also about the design in the teacher-developed worksheets.

Regarding the learning objectives and the school curriculum, four shortcomings emerged:

There is no coherence between the learning objectives and vocabulary learning; there are not explicit

activities to work or expand the learners’ contexts or knowledge; activities do not take into account

local and sociocultural students’ realities; and the institutional guidelines are not explicit in the

objectives and activities. These findings also evinced lack of a strategic planning, organization and

curricular process that connect the academic and institutional purposes with the teacher-developed

worksheets.

A second conclusion revealed, refers to vocabulary learning in terms of comprehension in

spoken and written form, retrieval, pronunciation, correctness and use of vocabulary in contextualized

oral and written production, such as greetings, asking personal information, describing family and

talking about emotions. Thus, didactic organization and sequence for vocabulary learning were not

73

evident in materials evaluated, nor a connection with the aspects of word knowledge, central for

vocabulary learning. Instead, it was possible to evince an implicit sequence based on the Presentation,

Practice, Production (PPP) philosophy, but not with an intentional organization to favor vocabulary

learning.

A third conclusion refers to the assessment of the procedures to attain meaningful learning

though teacher-developed materials, which requires a type of activities focused on the meaningful

learning approach. Offering opportunities to YLs to associate new information to previous cognitive

structures as opposed to rote learning and memorization is central in this approach. Concerning

meaningful learning, the evaluated worksheets do a basic attempt to stablish processes in accordance

with this approach. Likewise, some activities imply communicative interactions among YLs-YLs and

YLs-teacher done through speaking activities. Additionally, the foundations of meaningful learning

are not represented in the worksheets as the activities are not centered on expectations or difficulties

of YLs; there are few references to YLs’ personal and cultural context and absence of activities to

allow YLs to use language in realistic contexts or to ponder their values.

In terms of the didactic sequence of the materials, there is neither organizational criteria nor a

complex organization based on the curriculum goals or topics. Regarding activities selection, it was

possible to observe that learning activities are directed towards the development of the speaking skill,

assuring participation of YLs within the EFL classroom. Although, the Cambridge Test Training is

mentioned on the cover of the worksheets, there are no opportunities to foster reading, listening, or

writing in accordance with the CEFR (2002) relevant activities. In general, the findings for all

categories suggest improving teaching materials, therefore the teaching and learning processes in

relation to the teacher's pedagogical practice.

Pedagogical Implications

To start, the design of the evaluation matrix allowed me to gain knowledge in the field of MD,

evaluation of materials, the meaningful learning approach and vocabulary learning. Besides, the in-

depth analysis of the findings improved my pedagogical practices in Colegio Mayor de San

74

Bartolomé. In the same way, the information gathering process was an opportunity to listen to the

views of my colleagues and share common concerns, ideas and future proposals. This evaluation

research also allowed me to reflect on the positive effects of materials centered on YLs’ life

experiences, age, context and needs through their learning process. On the other hand, this evaluation

research allowed EFL teachers as materials developers to identify the need of a systematic plan to

articulate learning goals, contextual components and realities, as well as methodological procedures

in teacher-developed materials among which we can mention worksheets, workshops, lessons, and

learning activities. As language teachers, we should read, interpret and make sense of our teaching

context, and decide the communicative skills that are intended to develop. Likewise, this study

allowed the discovery of the need of adjusting the PIA and the English program in our school, as well

as consider options or post-method pedagogies to propose contents enrooted in YLs prior knowledge

and real sociocultural context.

This evaluation research helped schools’ administrative staff and leaderships to recognize the

need to understand EFL teaching and learning materials, and thus promote its pedagogical and

contextualized development. On this matter, Núñez (2017) pointed out that “workshops [are] made

up of several lessons to foster different language skills whose learning activities are completed in the

EFL classroom” (slide 76). Similarly, Núñez and Téllez (2018) considered that “contextualised

materials [should] respond to ground realities of everyday-human life” (p. 37). Likewise, Hyland (as

cited in Tomlinson, 2013) recommended “to plan a learning of text types which scaffold learner

progress” (p. 395). Hence, teachers, without restriction, can propose meaningful learning activities to

YLs by creating situations that integrate YLs’ prior knowledge, their real sociocultural context, and

the school’s educational project.

Recommendations

After explaining the results of this qualitative documentary research study that evaluated the

aspects revealed in teacher-developed materials that promote vocabulary learning through the

meaningful approach in preschool and elementary students in Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé, the

75

following central recommendations emerged. Thus, EFL teachers as text developers should: (a )

Ensure that students’ genuine realities or sociocultural context inform the materials they develop; (b)

determine pertinent criteria regarding the key aspect of layout that entails using printed texts and

illlustrtions that facilitate understanding; (c) establish a strong direct link between the learning

objectives of the school curriculum and the learning proposed for the vocabulary learning process; (d

) to procure a pedagogical sequence of vocabularuylearning activities starting form the simplest and

gradually moving to the most complex, recycling from more concrete to more open-ended, keeping a

‘feeding relationship’among previous and following activites; (e ) guarantee the inclusion of learning

activites that foster word knowledge in terms of receptive, phonological orthographical and

grammatical knowledge (form); conceptual and colocation knowledge (meaning); as well as memory

and pragmatic knowledge (use); and (f) incorporate the foundations of meaningful learning by

centring learning activites on YLs’ nees, life experiences, expectations, and weaknesses to properly

address their realistic contexts, to ponder their values, and to allow YLs to transform their own

realities.

Limitations

Two main issues were the limitations to carry out this qualitative evaluation research. First,

due to the dynamics of the school, the opportunities to meet teachers were scanty. Although they

were willing to participate in the focus group interview, some of them could not be present to share

their points of view. Second, in the exploration for related studies, it was not possible to find local or

national studies based on the analysis of vocabulary learning in EFL textbooks or teaching material.

Further Research

According to the findings of this study, two questions emerged for further evaluation

research: What is are the perceptions of young learners in relation to learning vocabulary through

localized materials? What are the pedagogical criteria for vocabulary learning from the voices of

young learners in a private EFL context?

76

References

Acodesi (2006). Manual del aula de clase. Manizales, Colombia: Colegio San Luis Gonzaga.

Al-Akraa, S. (2013). Teaching English in Iraq: an analysis of an efl textbook. (Unpublished

master’s thesis). University of Central Florida. Orlando, USA.

Ausubel, D. (1981). Educational psychology. A cognitive point of view. Trillas, D.F., México: Ed.

Trillas.

Ausubel, D. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Boston,

U.S.A: Kewer Academic Publishers.

Bader, G., & Rossi, K. (2002). Focus group. A step by step guide. Portland, USA: The bader

group.

Bailey, K.D. (1994). Methods of Social Research (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Barnard, R. & Zemach, D. (2003). Materials for specific Purposes. In C. Tomlinson (Ed.),

Materials Development in Language Teaching. (pp. 306- 323). England: Cromwell Press.

Barron & Darling-Hammond, (2008). Teaching for Meaningful Learning; a Review of research

on inquiry- based on cooperative learning. Edutopia Foundation, Ohio, USA: College of

Education.

Bell, J. (2005). Doing your research project. A guide for first-time researchers. New York,

U.S.A.: Open University Press.

Bernal, C.A., (2010). Metodología de la investigación. (3a Ed.). Bogotá, Colombia: Pearson

Educación.

Byrd, P. (2001). Textbooks: Evaluation and selection and analysis for implementation. In M

Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 415-

427) Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

77

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press

Castañeda, H., & Rico, C. (2015). Rasgos característicos de la enseñanza en Colombia en el

área de inglés como lengua extranjera. Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación Compartir.

Castillo Losada, C. A., Insuasty, E. A., & Jaime Osorio, M. F. (2017). The impact of authentic

materials and tasks on students’ communicative competence at a Colombian language

school. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(1), 89-104.

Cázares Hernández, L., Christen, M., Jaramillo Levi, E., Villaseñor Roca, L., y Zamudio

Rodríguez, L. (1990). Técnicas actuales de investigación documental, (3a Ed). D.F.,

México: Trillas.

Cohen, A.D. (1996). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues.

Research Report, Revised Version, Center for Advanced Research on Language

Acquisition, Minnesota University, Minneapolis.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th Ed.). London,

UK: Routlege Falmer.

Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé. (2017). Proyecto Edicativo Institucional. Retrieved from

https://colmayordesanbartolome.sharepoint.com/sites/englishareaboard/Documents/Forms

/AllItems.aspx?id=

Cruz, L. (2014). Sistema de gestión escolar para el seguimiento y mejoramiento de los procesos

de lectura y escritura en el I.E.D. República del Ecuador J.T. (Unpublished master’s

thesis). Universidad Libre. Bogotá.

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Cambridge, UK: Macmillan Heinemann.

Cunningsworth, A. & Tomlinson, B., (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials.

London, UK: Heinemann Educational.

78

Davcheva, L., & Sercu, L. (2005). Culture in Foreign Language Teaching Materials. In L. Sercu

(Comp). Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence. An International

Investigation. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters Ltd. p.76-90.

Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51 (1),

36-42.

Escudero, T. (2016). La investigación evaluativa en el Siglo XXI: Un instrumento para el

desarrollo educativo y social cada vez más relevante. RELIEVE, 22 (1), 1-20.

Fernández, S. (1995). Consideraciones sobre la teoría socio-crítica de la enseñanza. Enseñanza &

Teaching: Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica, 13, 241-259.

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogía del Oprimido. 2ª ed. (1ª Ed. 1970). D.F., Mexico: Siglo XXI

Editores S.A. de C.V.

Freitas, H., Oliveira, M., Jenkins, M., & Popjoy, O. (1998). The focus group, a qualitative

research method. Working Paper ISRC No. 010298: ISRC, Merrick School of Business,

University of Baltimore (MD, EUA), WP, p. 22.

Gill, P. W., Stewart, K. F., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in

qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291-

295.

Giroux, H. A. (2003). Pedagogía y política de la esperanza: teoría, cultura y enseñanza. Buenos

Aires: Amorrortu Editores.

Givón, T. (1984). Syntax, vol. 1. Amsterdam, Netherlans: John Benjamins Publishing.

Gómez Rodríguez, L. F. (2010). English textbooks for teaching and learning English as a foreign

language: Do they really help to develop communicative competence? Educación y

Educadores, 13(3), 327-346.

Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. London, UK: Longman.

79

Graves, K. (1997). Teachers as materials developers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses. A guide for teachers. Boston, Canada: Heinle &

Heinle Publishers.

Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2004). Qualitative methods for health research. London, UK: Sage

Publications.

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Fourth Edition. New York, NY:

Longman.

Harwood, N. (ed.) (2010). English language teaching materials: Theory and practice.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Howard, J., & Major, J. (2004). Guidelines for designing effective English language teaching

materials. The TESOLANZ Journal, 12, 50-58

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred

approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Isik, A. (2018). ELT Materials Evaluation: A System and Criteria. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 8(7), 797-812.

Kitao, K., & Kitao, S.K. (1997). Selecting and developing teaching / learning materials.

Recuperado de http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks,

London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.

Lamb, S. (2011). How to Write It. A Complete Guide to Everything You'll Ever Write. Berkeley,

USA: Ten Speed Press.

80

Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In

Tomlinson, B. (Ed.) Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp. 179-211)

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Littlejohn, A. (2012). Language teaching materials and the (very) big picture. Electronic Journal

of Foreing Language Teaching, 9(1), 282-297

Litz, D. (2000). Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South Korean case study.

Retrieved May 22, 2018, from http://www.asian-efljournal.com/Litz_thesis.pdf

Markee, N. (1993). The diffusion of innovation in language teaching. Annual review of applied

linguistics, 13, 229-243.

Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Materials for general English. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),

English language learning materials. A critical review (pp. 17-37). London: Continuum.

Mayer, R.E. (2002). Rote versus Meaningful Learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 226-232.

Mcdonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT. A teacher’s

guide (3rd edition). London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mishan, F., & Timmis, I. (2015). Materials development for TESOL. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh

University Press.

Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (2002). Marco común de referencia para la

enseñanza, el aprendizaje y la evaluación de lenguas. Madrid, España: Artes Gráficas

Fernández.

Ministerio de Educación Nacional (2006). Serie Guías 22. Estándares básicos de competencias

en lenguas extranjeras: inglés. Formar en lenguas extranjeras: ¡el reto! Lo que

necesitamos saber y saber hacer. Bogotá, Colombia: MEN

Momeni, S. & Reza, S. (2012). Definition-based versus contextualized vocabulary learning.

Theory and Practice in Language Study, 2,(11), pp. 2302-2307

81

Montijano, M. (2014). Textbook use training in EFL teacher education. Utrecht studies in

Language & Communication, (27), 267-286.

Morales, O. A. (2003). Fundamentos de la investigación documental y la monografía. En 67 N.

Espinoza & Á. Rincón (Eds.), Manual para la elaboración y presentación de la

monografía. Mérida, Venezuela: SABER-ULA, Universidad de Los Andes. Recuperado

de http://www.saber.ula.ve/handle/123456789/16490

Morgan, D. L. (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research. (2ª ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications Inc.

Novak, J. (1993). Paper title in the proceedings of the third international seminar on

misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics. Trust, Ithaca: NY.

Novak, J., (2011). A theory of education: meaningful learning underlies the constructive

integration of thinking, feeling, and acting leading to empowerment for commitment and

responsibility. EM Journal, Vol. 1 (2), pp. 1-14

Novak, J., (2013). Meaningful learning is the foundation for creativity. Revista Qurriculum, 26,

27-38

Núñez, A., Pineda, C., & Téllez, M. (2004). Unidades didácticas relacionadas con el

pensamiento crítico: una alternativa innovadora para fomentar la competencia

lingüística en lengua extranejra. Bogotá, Colombia: Departamento de Publicaciones

Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Núñez, A., Pineda, C., & Téllez, M. (2004). Key Aspects for Developing your Instructional

Materials. Profile issues in Teachers’ profesional development, 5, 128-139.

Núñez, A. (2008). The evolving nature of language teaching methodologies. [PowerPoint slides].

82

Núñez, A., Téllez, M., & Castellanos, J., & Ramos, B. (2009). A practical materials development

guide for EFL novice, pre-service and inservice teachers. Bogotá, Colombia:

Departamento de Publicaciones Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Núñez, A., (2010). The teaching of English within the theory-practice alternance model. In:

Innovación y Competitividad. Memorias de la Jornada de Investigación. (pp. 32-54),

Bogotá: Fundación Universitaria Empresarial de la Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá

Uniempresarial.

Núñez, A. (2017). Innovation and implementation concept and cycle. [PowerPoint slides].

Núñez, A. (2017). Theoretical foundations and practical insights for MD. [PowerPoint slides].

Núñez, A. (2018). Transforming Through Critical Pedagogy. [PowerPoint slides].

Núñez, A., Pineda. C. & Téllez, M. (2004). Key aspects for developing your instructional

materials. PROFILE: Issues in Teacher´s professional Development 5(1), 128-139.

Núñez, A., & Téllez, M. (2009). ELT materials: the key to fostering effective teaching and

learning settings. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11(2), 173-

186.

Núñez, A., & Téllez, M. (2015). Reflection on teachers’ personal and professional growth

through a materials development seminar. HOW, 22(2), 54-74.

Núñez, A., & Téllez, M.F. (2018). The argumentative competence through in-class debates. In

A. Núñez, M.F. Téllez, & J. Gómez (Eds.) (pp. 19-103). Teacher-developed materials for

language teaching and learning. Bogotá, Colombia: Departamento de Publicaciones

Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Núñez, A., Téllez, M., & Castellanos, J. (2012). A framework for materials development: a path

for in-service teachers to build up the instructional design of their research projects. In A.

Núñez, M. Téllez & J. Castellanos (Eds.) Teacher Research on English Didactics Issues

83

(pp. 14 - 38). Bogotá, Colombia: Departamento de Publicaciones Universidad Externado

de Colombia.

Núñez, A., Téllez, M., & Castellanos, J. (2013). Proposal for the Research Line Materials

Development and Didactics Ascribed to the Research Group: Critical Pedagogy and

Didactics for Social Transformation. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education,

Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Núñez, A., Téllez, M., & Castellanos, J. (2017a). Materials development for teachers’

professional growth. In A. Núñez, M. Téllez, & J. Castellanos (Eds.), Materials for the

learning of English and teachers’ professional growth (pp. 19-68). Bogotá, Colombia:

Departamento de Publicaciones, Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Núñez, A., Téllez, M. F., & Castellanos, J. (2017b). Teacher–Developed Materials in a Master’s

Programme in Education with Emphasis on English Didactics. In A. Núñez, M. Téllez, &

J. Castellanos (Eds.), The role of teacher- developed materials in fostering English

Language Skills. (pp. 13-56). Bogotá, Colombia: Departamento de Publicaciones

Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Núñez, A., Téllez, M., & Castellanos, J., & Ramos, B. (2009). A practical materials development

guide for EFL novice, pre-service and inservice teachers. Bogotá, Colombia:

Departamento de Publicaciones Universidad Externado de Colombia.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ortiz, G. (2014). El color. Un facilitador didáctico. Revista de Psicología, 10(1), 1-24

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston,

MA: Heinle & Heinle.

84

Oxford, R. & Crookall, D. (1990). Vocabulary learning: A critical analysis of techniques. TESL

Canada Journal, 7(2), 9-27.

Packer, M. (2013). La ciencia de la investigación cualitativa. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones

Uniandes.

Pineda Báez, C. (2004). Critical Thinking in the EFL Classroom: The Search for a Pedagogical

Alternative to Improve English Learning. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 9(15), 45-

80.

Powell, R. R. (2006). Evaluation research: An overview. Library Trends, 55(1), 102-120.

Ramírez Salas, M. (2004). English teachers as materials developers. Revista Electrónica

"Actualidades Investigativas en Educación", 4 (2), 1-17.

Richards, J. C. (2001). The Role of Textbooks in a Language Program. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2005). Materials development and research: Making the connection. In TESOL

Convention Presentation. Texas.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York, U.S.A.:

Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2012). The Role of Textbook in a Language Program. Retrieved from

http://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/role-of-textbooks.pdf

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Aproaches and Methods in Language Teaching. A

description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rico, C. (2005). Searching for coherence in language teaching: the issue of teaching

competencies. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, (7), 95-107.

Rico, C. (2005). The Matter of Selecting and Evaluating Materials. MATSDA Folios.

85

Rico, C. (2012). Language Teaching Materials as mediators for ICC development: a Challenge

for Materials Developers. Signo y Pensamiento, XXX (60), 130-154.

Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students

and researchers. Chenai, India: Sage Publications Ltda.

Rivera, J. (2004) El aprendizaje significativo y la evaluación de los aprendizajes. Revista de

investigación educativa, 8(14), 47-52.

Rodríguez, C. (2012). Cognitive and metacognitive strategies in the development of autonomy

using portfolios in an EFL context. In A. Núñez, M. Téllez & J. Castellanos (Eds.)

Teacher Research on English Didactics Issues (pp. 179 - 196). Bogotá, Colombia:

Departamento de Publicaciones Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Rutter, J. (1998). Graphic Idea Resource: Layout: Working with Layout for Great Design. Reno,

United States of America: Rockport Publishers, Inc.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Sharkey, J., Girolimon, L, Meyer, S., & Proulx, T. (2012). University-community partnerships to

support teachers, refugee students and families. Presentation at the 46th Annual TESOL

Convention, Philadelphia, PA. March 2012.

Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42 (4), 237- 246.

Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 531-

547.

Tapias, M. (2018). The use of contextualized teacher-designed workshops based on explicit

cognitive strategies foster tenth graders vocabulary learning at a public school

(Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidad Externado de Colombia. Bogotá

86

Thomas, C. (2014). Meeting EFL learners halfway by using locally relevant authentic materials.

In English Teaching Forum, 52(3), 14-23.

Tok, H. (2010). TEFL textbook evaluatıon: From teachers’ perspectıves. Educational Research

and Reviews, 5(9), 508-517.

Tomlinson, B. (Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp. 179-211). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London, UK: Continuum.

Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Cambridge,

UK: University Press.

Tomlinson, B. (2012) State-of-the-Art Article Materials development for language learning and

teaching. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/ 143-

179

Tomlinson, B. (2014). Developing materials for language teaching (Second edition). London,

UK: Bloomsbury.

Trask, R. (1999) Key concepts y language and linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Practice and theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Williams, D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37, 251-255.

87

Appendices

Appendix A:

Evaluation Matrix * for Materials that promote Vocabulary Learning through the Meaningful Approach among Young Learners

Preschool to Fifth Grades in Mayor de San Bartolomé School

*Based in Littlejohn’s Framework

Evaluation Criteria Enterely neat Partially It is not

fullfil Observations

(a) Engaging Layout and design

Materials are attractive

The printing is high quality

Fount and size letter are appropriate (size: 13)

Clear and colorful images, illustrations, draws, diagrams and tables

Titles are numbered, written clearly and appropriately

It is free of mistakes

(b) Objectives of the school curriculum

Develop and draw cross curricular knowledge

Develop and draw cross cultural knowledge

The social and cultural contexts exposed in PEI are explicit on materials

Encourage the learners to use the language for communicative purposes

The objectives are specified in both content and performance terms

The objectives are related to learner’s needs, interests and life experiences.

The objectives are relevant to students’ local sociocultural context

Materials rises learner´s interest in further English language study

(c) Activities selection

There is a variety of meaningful exercises and activities to practice the four language skills

Activities provide practice exercises for final achievement test according to the CEFR (MEN, 2002)

Activities provide topics and tasks according to specific learner´s levels, styles, interest and life experiences

There are clear instructions to develop each activity or task

The activities and task are selected according to a realistic and motivational context

88

The activities contemplate comparing, thinking, socializing and changing student’s realities

(d) Didactic organization and sequence

The content is clearly organized according to complexity

Materials are organized according to the goals of the curriculum

There is a balance among pictures, diagrams and illustrations in relation to the text sequence

All the activities have a logical to develop them (introduction, explanation, development, practice, reflection)

The activites are supported by learning strategies to foster self-study purposes

(e) Types of activities according to the Meaningful Learning Approach approach

The approach used is learner centered

The activities promote interaction between teacher-learner, and learner-learner

The activities help the teacher to explore the learners’ needs, difficulties and expectations

The activities allow the learner to infer, describe, categorize and compare the information through exercises

The activities give to the learner opportunities to reflect upon their own learning, values and beliefs

(g) Vocabulary learning

The distribution of vocabulary activities goes from simple to complex according to the YLs level

Vocabulary is contextualized and meaningful for students since it refers to their life experiences

A word is used in grammatically accurate sentences, making connections with other words

There are exercises to know a word and use it in the right situation

There are activities that allow to recall a word when YLs need it

There are activities for learners to understand a spoken or written word

89

Appendix B

Expert Validation of Instruments

Bogotá, Diciembre de 2018 Señor: MIGUEL ANGEL CUERVO LAGOS Docente de Matemáticas Colegio Agustiniano Tagaste Cordial saludo: Por medio de la presente, yo JENIFHER BAUTISTA MOYANO, docente de inglés del Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé en los grados de preescolar, me dirijo a usted con el fin de solicitar su colaboración en la convalidación de la presente matriz para el estudio que me encuentro desarrollando de la Maestría en Educación con Énfasis en Didáctica del Inglés de la Universidad Externado de Colombia. El estudio de se titula Evaluación de los Materiales Desarollados por los Maestros para el Aprendizaje de Vocabulario en Inglés a través del Enfoque de Aprendizaje Significativo. - Evaluating Meaningful Teacher-Developed Materials for Vocabulary Learning Este estudio tiene como finalidad, caracterizar las guías y las hojas de trabajo desarrolladas por los maestros, determinando así su alcance en los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje de vocabulario en inglés. Esto, con el fin de compartir con la institución los hallazgos, los aspectos positivos y los aspectos a mejorar en beneficio de los procesos de aprendizaje de inglés como lengua extranjera en nuestros estudiantes. Agradezco su valiosa atención y colaboración. Atentamente; JENIFHER BAUTISTA MOYANO Maestría en Educación con énfasis en didáctica del inglés Tercer Semestre

90

91

Appendix C: Focus Group Protocol

Questions on Layout and Visual Design

1. ¿Cree que los materiales desarrollados por los maestros son atractivos o no para los niños?

¿Por què?

2. ¿Considera que el texto tiene el contenido y las actividades de aprendizaje necesarios para

que el estudiante comprenda adecuadamente? ¿Por qué?

Questions on Aim and Objectives of the School Curriculum

3. ¿Considera que las guías y hojas de trabajo, desarrollan o no las cuatro habilidades de

lengua en los estudiantes (lectura, escuha, escritura y habla)? ¿Por qué?

4. ¿Considera que las guías y hojas de trabajo representan o no un aprendizaje transversal

del currículo? ¿Por qué?

5. ¿Considera que el contexto sociocultural expuesto en el PEI está implícito o no en las

guías y hojas de trabajo? ¿De qué manera?

6. ¿Considera que los objetivos de las guías y hojas de trabajo se desarrollan o no en

concordancia con las necesidades, intereses y experiencias de vida de los estudiantes? ¿De

qué manera?

7. ¿Considera que los objetivos de las guías y hojas de trabajo promueven o no el interés por

el aprendizaje del inglés como lengua extranjera? ¿Por qué?

Questions on Activity Selection

8. ¿Cómo considera las instrucciones de las guías y hojas de trabajo en relación con el

desarrollo cada una de las actividades?

92

9. ¿Cómo descibiría las actividades de las guías y hojas de trabajo en relación con las cuatro

habilidades comunicativas?

10. ¿Considera que las guías y hojas de trabajo contienen o no actividades de evaluación final

de acuerdo al MCE (2002)?

11. ¿Cómo considera el tipo de respuetas que las guías y horas de trabajo promueven?

Questions on Organization and Sequence

12. ¿Cuál considera Usted debe ser el ítem central para la elaboración y organización de los

materiales enseñanza?

13. ¿Cuál cree Usted es la forma más adecuada de organizar la secuencia del material?

14. ¿Cuál considera Usted debe ser la sequecnia establecida para cada segmento del material?

Questions on Meaningful Learning Approach

15. ¿Qué elementos del aprendizaje significativo considera usted están explícito en el material

de enseñanza?

16. ¿Consideran Usted que el desarrollo de las guías y hojas de trabajo en el aula permiten al

profesor identificar y explorar las necesidades, dificultades y expectativas de los

estudiantes? ¿Por qué?

a. ¿Las actividades de aprendizaje permiten que los estudiantes expresan su propia visión del

mundo?

b. ¿Las actividades de aprendizaje permiten el desarrollo de las inteligencias múltiples?

c. ¿Las actividades de aprendizaje permiten que los estudiantes apliquen las cuatro

habilidades comunicativas en por medio de la resolución de problemas, crear soluciones

alternativas para problemas de la vida cotidiana?

93

d. ¿Las actividades de aprendizaje permiten que los estudiantes reflexionen sobre su

aprendizaje, valores y creencias?

Questions on Vocabulary Learning

17. ¿Considera que la presentación del vocabulario está organizada de lo simple a lo complejo

o de lo complejo a lo simple?

18. ¿Se proponen actividades que fomenten la comprensión una palabra cuando se pronuncia

y cuando se escribe?

19. ¿Las actividades permiten o no que el estudiante recuerde una palabra cuando la necesita?

20. ¿Se proponen actividades que permitan tomar el sonido inicial de una palabra para formar

unas nuevas?

21. ¿Las actividades promueven o no el trabajo de Spelling o del conocimiento ortográfico?

22. ¿Las actividades permiten on no conocer y usar una palabra de acerdo con su significado?

23. ¿Considera que en las guías y hojas de trabajo proponen actividades que impliquen la

escritura, el deletreo y el uso gramatical de las palabras?

94

Appendix D: Structured Interiew

Questions on Layout and Visual Design

24. ¿Cómo considera los materiales desarrollados en términos de su diseño? ¿Por que?

25. ¿Considera usted que el texto tiene o no el contenido y las actividades de aprendizaje

necesarios para que el estudiante comprenda adecuadamente? ¿Por que?

Questions on Aim and Objectives of the School Curriculum

26. ¿Considera que las guías y hojas de trabajo, desarrollan o no las cuatro habilidades de

lengua en los estudiantes (lectura, escuha, escritura y hablsa? ¿Por qué?

27. ¿Considera que las guías y hojas de trabajo facilitan o no un aprendizaje transversal? ¿Por

qué?

28. ¿Considera que el contexto sociocultural expuesto en el PEI está implícito o no en las

guías y hojas de trabajo? ¿De qué manera?

29. ¿Considera que los objetivos de las guías y hojas de trabajo se desarrollan o no en

concordancia con las necesidades, intereses y experiencias de vida de los estudiantes? ¿De

qué manera?

30. ¿Considera que los objetivos de las guías y hojas de trabajo promueven o no el interés por

el aprendizaje del inglés como lengua extranjera? ¿Por qué?

Questions on Activity Selection

31. ¿Considera que las actividades de las guías y hojas de trabajo contienen o no instrucciones

claras para su desarrollo?

32. ¿Cómo descibiría las actividades de las guías y hojas de trabajo en relación con las cuatro

habilidades comunicativas?

95

33. ¿Considera que las guías y hojas de trabajo contienen o no actividades de evaluación final

de acuerdo al MCE (2002)?

34. ¿Cómo considera el tipo de respuetas que las guías y horas de trabajo promueven?

Questions on Organization and Sequence

35. ¿Cuál cree que debe ser el ítem central para la elaboración y organización de los

materiales enseñanza?

36. ¿Cuál cree Usted es la forma más adecuada de organizar la secuencia del material?

37. ¿Cuál considera Usted debe ser la secuencia establecida para cada segmento del material?

Questions on Meaningful Learning Approach

38. ¿Qué elementos del aprendizaje significativo considera usted están explícitos en el

material de enseñanza?

39. ¿Consideran que el desarrollo de las guías y hojas de trabajo en el aula permiten o no al

profesor identificar y explorar las necesidades, dificultades y expectativas de los

estudiantes? ¿Por qué?

e. ¿Cree que las actividades de aprendizaje permiten que los estudiantes expresan su propia

visión del mundo?

f. ¿Considera que las actividades de aprendizaje permiten o no el desarrollo de las

inteligencias múltiples? ¿Por qué?

g. ¿Las actividades de aprendizaje permiten o no que los estudiantes apliquen las cuatro

habilidades comunicativas en por medio de la resolución de problemas, crear soluciones

alternativas para problemas de la vida cotidiana?

h. ¿Las actividades de aprendizaje permiten o no que los estudiantes reflexionen sobre su

aprendizaje, valores y creencias?

96

Questions on Vocabulary Learning

40. ¿Considera que la presentación del vocabulario va de lo simple a lo complejo o de lo

complejo a lo simple? Justifique

41. ¿Las actividades que se presentan dan cuenta o no de que el estudiante comprende una

palabra cuando se pronuncia y cuando se escribe?

42. ¿Las actividades permiten o no que el estudiante recuerde una palabra cuando la necesita?

43. ¿Se proponen actividades que permitan o no tomar el sonido inicial de una palabra para

formar unas nuevas?

44. ¿Las hojas de trabajo promueven actividades de Spelling o adecuado conocimiento

ortográfico?

45. ¿Las hojas de trabajo promueven actividades o no para conocer y usar una palabra por lo

que significa?

46. ¿Considera que en las guías y hojas de trabajo se ofrecen o no actividades que impliquen

escritura de una palabra, saberla deletrear y poder relacionarla con la gramática?

97

Appendix E: Informed Consent Form

Bogotá, agosto de 2018 Señores COLEGIO MAYOR DE SAN BARTOLOME Atn. Subdirectora Académica y profesores del área de inglés. Sede Infantiles Apreciados profesores: Cordialmente, yo JENIFHER BAUTISTA MOYANO, docente de inglés de los grados de preescolar, me dirijo a ustedes con el fin de solicitar su colaboración y aprobación para poder realizar una entrevista grupal dirigida a los maestros del área de inglés y una entrevista personal dirigida a la monitora del área para recolectar información para el estudio que me encuentro desarrollando para la Maestría en Educación con Énfasis en Didáctica del Inglés de la Universidad Externado de Colombia. El estudio de se titula Evaluación de los Materiales Desarollados por los Maestros para el Aprendizaje de Vocabualrio en Inglés a través del Enfoque Significativo. Este proyecto tiene como finalidad, caracterizar las guías y las hojas de trabajo desarrolladas por los maestros, determinando así su alcance en los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje de vocabulario en inglés. Esto, con el fin de compartir con la institución los hallazgos, los aspectos positivos y los aspectos a mejorar en beneficio de los procesos de aprendizaje de inglés como lengua extranjera en nuestros estudiantes. Para efectos de este estudio tanto la entrevista grupal, como la entrevista a la monitora, serán grabadas por medio de audio y/o video. Por lo tanto, como maestra-investigadora está bajo mi responsabilidad protejer y respetar el anonimato de los maestros participantes. La información que de allí resulte será estricamente confidencial y se emplerá exclusivamente con fines investigativos. Finalmente agradezco su valiosa atención y colaboración. Atentamente; JENIFHER BAUTISTA MOYANO Docente de Inglés grados preescolar Favor diligenciar este formato de consentimiento para ser devuelto Yo, _______________________, identificado(a) con C.C. No. ________________, professor(a) del área de inglés acepto________ / no acepto ________ participar en la entrevista _______con la profesora JENIFHER BAUTISTA MOYANO durante el segundo semestre del año 2018.

98

99

Appendix F: Teachers-Developed Worksheets Evaluated

Evaluation Matrix* for Materials that promote Vocabulary Learning through the Meaningful Approach among Young Learners

Second Grade in Mayor de San Bartolomé School

*Based in Littlejohn’s Framework

Evaluation Criteria Entirely fullfiled

Partially fullfilled

Not fullfiled Observations

(a) Engaging Layout and design

Materials are attractive

The printing is high quality

Fount and size letter are appropriate (size: 13)

Clear and colorful images, illustrations, draws, diagrams and tables

Titles are numbered, written clearly and appropriately

It is free of mistakes

(b) Objectives of the school curriculum

Develop and draw cross curricular knowledge

Develop and draw cross cultural knowledge

The social and cultural contexts exposed in PEI are explicit on materials

Encourage the learners to use the language for communicative purposes

The objectives are specified in both content and performance terms

The objectives are related to learner’s needs, interests and life experiences.

The objectives are relevant to students’ local sociocultural context

Materials rises learner´s interest in further English language study

(c) Activities selection

There is a variety of meaningful exercises and activities to practice the four language skills

Activities provide practice exercises for final achievement test according to the CEFR (MEN, 2002)

Activities provide topics and tasks according to specific learner´s levels, styles, interest and life experiences

There are clear instructions to develop each activity or task

The activities and task are selected according to a realistic and motivational context

The activities contemplate comparing, thinking, socializing and changing student’s realities

100

(d) Didactic organization and sequence

The content is clearly organized according to complexity

Materials are organized according to the goals of the curriculum

There is a balance among pictures, diagrams and illustrations in relation to the text sequence

All the activities have a logical to develop them (introduction, explanation, development, practice, reflection)

The activites are supported by learning strategies to foster self-study purposes

(e) Types of activities according to the Meaningful Learning Approach approach

The approach used is learner centered

The activities promote interaction between teacher-learner, and learner-learner

The activities help the teacher to explore the learners’ needs, difficulties and expectations

The activities allow the learner to infer, describe, categorize and compare the information through exercises

The activities give to the learner opportunities to reflect upon their own learning, values and beliefs

(g) Vocabulary learning

The distribution of vocabulary activities goes from simple to complex according to the YLs level

Vocabulary is contextualized and meaningful for students since it refers to their life experiences

A word is used in grammatically accurate sentences, making connections with other words

There are exercises to know a word and use it in the right situation

There are activities that allow to recall a word when YLs need it

There are activities for learners to understand a spoken or written word

101

Font and size letter are not appopiate and there is not

a table of content.

There are not explicit activities to develop cross cultural knowledge. YLs are not exposed to their cultural contexts according to the PEI.

The content is mentioned, but it is not clearly organized according to complexity or by goals of the curriculum.

102

Learning activities are partially selected according to a realistic and motivational context.

There is not a variety of meaningful exercises and activities to practice the four language skills in an integrated manner.

103

I

There is a partial balance among pictures, diagrams and illustrations in relation to the text sequence

Activities partially promote interaction between teacher-learner and learner-learner.

Activities partially, present contextualized and meaningful vocabulary for YLs, referring to their life experiences

Isolated words; there are not exercises to use a word it in the right situation.

104

Activities partially, promote interaction between teacher-learner and learner-learner.

105

There are not activities for learners to understand a spoken or written word.

106

107

To a certain extend, the approach is learner centered.

Words are not used in grammatically accurate sentences, to make connections with other words.

Isolated words, there are not exercises to use a word in the right situation.

108

Appendix G: Teachers-Developed Worksheets Evaluated

Evaluation Matrix* for Materials that promote Vocabulary Learning through the Meaningful

Approach among Young Learners Third Grade in Mayor de San Bartolomé School

*Based in Littlejohn’s Framework

Evaluation Criteria Entirely fullfiled

Partially fullfilled

Not fullfiled Observations

(a) Engaging Layout and design

Materials are attractive

The printing is high quality

Fount and size letter are appropriate (size: 13)

Clear and colorful images, illustrations, draws, diagrams and tables

Titles are numbered, written clearly and appropriately

It is free of mistakes

(b) Objectives of the school curriculum

Develop and draw cross curricular knowledge

Develop and draw cross cultural knowledge

The social and cultural contexts exposed in PEI are explicit on materials

Encourage the learners to use the language for communicative purposes

The objectives are specified in both content and performance terms

The objectives are related to learner’s needs, interests and life experiences.

The objectives are relevant to students’ local sociocultural context

Materials rises learner´s interest in further English language study

(c) Activities selection

There is a variety of meaningful exercises and activities to practice the four language skills

Activities provide practice exercises for final achievement test according to the CEFR (MEN, 2002)

Activities provide topics and tasks according to specific learner´s levels, styles, interest and life experiences

There are clear instructions to develop each activity or task

The activities and task are selected according to a realistic and motivational context

109

The activities contemplate comparing, thinking, socializing and changing student’s realities

(d) Didactic organization and sequence

The content is clearly organized according to complexity

Materials are organized according to the goals of the curriculum

There is a balance among pictures, diagrams and illustrations in relation to the text sequence

All the activities have a logical to develop them (introduction, explanation, development, practice, reflection)

The activites are supported by learning strategies to foster self-study purposes

(e) Types of activities according to the Meaningful Learning Approach approach

The approach used is learner centered

The activities promote interaction between teacher-learner, and learner-learner

The activities help the teacher to explore the learners’ needs, difficulties and expectations

The activities allow the learner to infer, describe, categorize and compare the information through exercises

The activities give to the learner opportunities to reflect upon their own learning, values and beliefs

(g) Vocabulary learning

The distribution of vocabulary activities goes from simple to complex according to the YLs level

Vocabulary is contextualized and meaningful for students since it refers to their life experiences

A word is used in grammatically accurate sentences, making connections with other words

There are exercises to know a word and use it in the right situation

There are activities that allow to recall a word when YLs need it

There are activities for learners to understand a spoken or written word

110

Materials do not develop and draw crosscurricular knowledge.

The content is mentioned, but it is not clearly organized according to complexity or by goals of the curriculum.

111

The activities do not contemplate comparing, thinking, socializing and changing student’s realities.

All the activities have a logical sequence to develop them: Context, experience, reflection, action and evaluation.

To some extent, the vocabulary is contextualized and meaningful for students since it refers to their life experiences

Words are not used in grammatically accurate sentences, to make connections with other words.

112

Although clear, instructions to develop each activity should be revised.

Activities do not help to explore learner’s needs, difficulties or expectations.

113

There are not colorful

images, tables or

illustrations.

Activities and tasks are not selected according to a realistic

and motivational context of YLs.

Isolated words, activities do not allow YLs to recall a word when they need it.

114

Appendix H: Teachers-Developed Worksheets Evaluated

Evaluation Matrix* for Materials that promote Vocabulary Learning through the Meaningful Approach among Young Learners

Fifth Grade in Mayor de San Bartolomé School

*Based in Littlejohn’s Framework

Evaluation Criteria Entirely fullfiled

Partially fullfilled

Not fullfiled Observations

(a) Engaging Layout and design

Materials are attractive

The printing is high quality

Fount and size letter are appropriate (size: 13)

Clear and colorful images, illustrations, draws, diagrams and tables

Titles are numbered, written clearly and appropriately

It is free of mistakes

(b) Objectives of the school curriculum

Develop and draw cross curricular knowledge

Develop and draw cross cultural knowledge

The social and cultural contexts exposed in PEI are explicit on materials

Encourage the learners to use the language for communicative purposes

The objectives are specified in both content and performance terms

The objectives are related to learner’s needs, interests and life experiences.

The objectives are relevant to students’ local sociocultural context

Materials rises learner´s interest in further English language study

(c) Activities selection

There is a variety of meaningful exercises and activities to practice the four language skills

Activities provide practice exercises for final achievement test according to the CEFR (MEN, 2002)

Activities provide topics and tasks according to specific learner´s levels, styles, interest and life experiences

There are clear instructions to develop each activity or task

The activities and task are selected according to a realistic and motivational context

The activities contemplate comparing, thinking, socializing and changing student’s realities

(d) Didactic organization and sequence

115

The content is clearly organized according to complexity

Materials are organized according to the goals of the curriculum

There is a balance among pictures, diagrams and illustrations in relation to the text sequence

All the activities have a logical sequence to develop them (introduction, explanation, development, practice, reflection)

The activites are supported by learning strategies to foster self-study purposes

(e) Types of activities according to the Meaningful Learning Approach approach

The approach used is learner centered

The activities promote interaction between teacher-learner, and learner-learner

The activities help the teacher to explore the learners’ needs, difficulties and expectations

The activities allow the learner to infer, describe, categorize and compare the information through exercises

The activities give to the learner opportunities to reflect upon their own learning, values and beliefs

(g) Vocabulary learning

The distribution of vocabulary activities goes from simple to complex according to the YLs level

Vocabulary is contextualized and meaningful for students since it refers to their life experiences

A word is used in grammatically accurate sentences, making connections with other words

There are exercises to know a word and use it in the right situation

There are activities that allow to recall a word when YLs need it

There are activities for learners to understand a spoken or written word

116

The printing is not high quality

These objectives are not related to learner’s needs, interests, life experiences or local sociocultural context.

The content is mentioned, but it is not clearly organized by complexity or by goals of the curriculum.

It is not clear distribution of

vocabulary from simple to complex

117

Activities and tasks are selected according to a realistic and motivational context.

There is not a variety of activities to practice vocabulary through the four language skills.

118

These activities raise learner’s interest in further English language study.

119